400 pages. That's the size of a report that was created for the BC members, and I tend to agree 120% with Bill Christine and his Consultants by the Carload (http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/west-coast-wash/07142009-consultants-by-the-carload/), the last thing the industry needs is more consultants. I should know I guess I've been a quasi one for about a year now. I've been lucky enough to go to the NTRA annual meeting, the TPA's meeting, and am part of a group of fans talking about the BC.

And this is what I've learned: It's not the marketing that holds the industry back. It's the industry itself. They hire consultants to come in look over their books but at the end of the day a few deck chairs are moved around but we're still on the Titanic.

I'll tell you the one story that is a great example of all this. Remember, the horse industry wants nothing to do with being for or against legalizing gambling (poker) on the internet. The reason for this is because the Inter-State Horse Racing Act is so poorly worded that at any time Congress could pretty much say, "This doesn't mean what you think it means" and poof there goes the industry.

What holds back this industry is the inability and the reluctance to admit that past contracts and dealings do not make sense in 1989 let alone 2009. Everyone is so scared to try and word a new contract because it might cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down. The industry doesn't need a new era of marketing it needs a new era of trust and cooperation at the most basic level. The Contract.

-------------

Dear HANA,

You have done a phenomenal job of organizing and you have people within your board ready to make change. I hope this open letter serves as a push, it is by NO means a critique.

The time has come to be more specific. Change is always be coming to this sport, but all we get are 400 page documents full of platitudes and affirmations. If you want change, if you want recognition, you must be specific. A lot more specific than below:

"We want open access to all track signals for all ADWs, takeouts that are competitive with other forms of gambling, the abolishment of breakage, severe penalties for trainers who cheat, and odds updates in real time. But most of all we want those who run racing to recognize us. The player matters. The player is a stakeholder too. Without money bet by us players the game would cease to exist."

Taking the idea that the current contracts in place between tracks on all levels are poorly acclimated to today's world and combining that with your focus on take out, breakage, and signal I ask you come up with a new contract. Most signal agreements between tracks are cumbersome, unwieldy, inefficient, take your pick. What the industry needs is a new starting point.

So what would a signal agreement look like? What should tracks strive to get to? I want to see real numbers, real contractual language, no more change, I want a finished product.

Sincerely,
A Consultant who realizes how dirty a word that can be.

ps for the record I'm an Itunes breakdown kind of guy
You know out $.99 cents the recording industry gets like $.65, the artist probably about $.10. So following that logic on a bet, 35% should go to the ADW or whoever accepts the bet, 55% to the host track, 10% to the horsemen.

miesque

07-14-2009, 02:21 PM

Please keep in mind we are not a Board of attorneys (thank God, we would never have gotten as far as we have if we were) so asking for a HANA to produce a legitimate binding 30-40 page legal document that would pass muster among the highly paid legal committees which are employeed by ADWs, Horsemens groups and Tracks is asking a bit much and frankly is not the best use of our time and meager resources to come up with. On the other hand if you are asking for the economic allocation breakdown which would be incorporated in such a document, that is more achievable. However, I do not quite understand what the purpose of this request is? Why does it need to be a finished, polished legal document? Also keep in mind open access is a policy, not a contract.

DeanT

07-14-2009, 02:38 PM

Thanks Machine.

For Open signal access I think that it is a phrase that makes people's eyes glaze over. But it should not. Why? Because it is happening right now in some instances. It is not some far out concept.

Mountaineer's Rose Mary Williams:

Mountaineer has never signed an exclusive contract with an ADW. When TVG asked us to sign an exclusive contract during our earlier years of export we decided it was in our best interest to offer the signal to all the ADW services. Unfortunately our races were partially shown by TVG but we believe that we made the right decision. We still offer our signal to all ADW's as we believe open access benefits all the MTR tracks.

MTR's signal is affordable, available, and available to anyone (in states that permit it) who wants to get lower takeout. If everything was like MTR's mgmt in terms of signal distribution and price, I think handles would be up and on the move, not down with no bottom in site. We dont have to write a new contract for open access, we could just copy and paste Mountaineers.

As for more consultants and commissions I couldnt agree more. The business hired Wil Cummings and his crew six years ago and everything he recommended was shelved - not only that, in some cases the exact opposite of what he recommended was done (see THG et al). In fact, about 90% of his predictions of what would happen if racing does not get moving came true, and finally a few of the recommendations are being looked at. We have all the commissions an commission reports we need regarding handle, we dont need another, we need to act on the old ones which have proven to be true. Easier said than done, of course.

PS: MNR in exporting the signal, giving more distribution and allowing folks like PTC to give a little back to players has worked fairly well for a track who concentrated on only live racing in 1999.

What we are really moving towards is a changing model with simulcasting and new distribution channels. There is a trend not just for gamblers, but also for racetracks to be moving to higher volume and lower margins. A good example of this, and a track that has embraced it successfully is Mountaineer Park. They didn’t export their signal until the year 2000. Handle went from $19 million in 1999 to $200 million in 2001 to over $300 million in 2003.

machine

07-14-2009, 02:53 PM

I am glad you all aren't lawyers and consultants, but some of you are, and i think it's important for any grass roots movement to have a specific platform. This contract idea is just one plank, but I think it might be the most important.

I disagree it would be a waste of your time. Every thing you guys do here is about those contracts held between tracks. Rebates, for example, are more possible for some tracks than others because of the contracts they've signed. If a track is only making 5% on a WPS and it's customers want 3% rebates why should that track even offer the bet? Just one example of how contracts hold the things you want back.

The purpose of having a ready made contract (or at least as close to the real thing as possible) is so you can put it in someone's face. You can say, here's what you should be doing. It's easy to say track A's takeout is too high, but what's the right level? It's easy to say there should be rebates, but like the above example, where should they come from. It's easy to say TVG is bad, but don't they deserve something for televising races in states they can't accept wagers from?

It's easy to throw stones if you don't have a house, true, but no one will take those stones seriously if you don't.

DeanT

07-14-2009, 03:03 PM

That's a fair point.

machine

07-14-2009, 03:22 PM

Soooo...... this is the part where you guys rally your troops and put pencil to paper. Start forming a coalition on these boards, have someone write up a draft, contact people off the record for some input, or a starting point, start polling people on what they want to see, start fact checking w/ people outside the group to make sure you don't pull a PETA (and say killing flies is the worst human offense possible) and look crazy. If you put out a contract that is competent, fair, well meaning, and SPECIFIC.... HANA holds the world in its hand.

HANA implores all tracks to move towards a contract that is fair and in accordance with today's business world. This base contract is fair, detailed, and will enable track management to get back to focusing on what's truly important, handle makers. No contract is plug and chug, but we hope this base contract acts as a guide to creating a new era in racing.

DeanT

07-14-2009, 03:38 PM

We have been detailing differing opines from within and outside the business on ADW and contracts, like this opine for example, which was at the very least interesting:

Tracknet and Mountaineer are the polar opposites right now and the gap to bridge that is cumbersome, however your point is a good one and worth discussing. It might have to move up the 'things to do' list and we'll definitely have a look at doing that and see if we can make some headway. We have a couple irons right now in the fire on contracts and making them better for the player, but since they are only preliminary we dont have much news on them. I think within a month or two we will have something worked out, and anyone that is passionate about it and wants to add their two cents, shoot us an email, and we can discuss having him/her as part of the working group.

machine

07-14-2009, 04:40 PM

I read that opine and remember thinking to myself they were arguing over words not numbers, that they both agreed it the system was broken but differed over how to correct it. So, I would say proof again that if HANA wants to improve it's place and get more attention and appreciation a platform with specifics would be a great first step.

Irons in the fire is great, not being able to report on them not so great, how can you gauge your success if you don't have a bar to gauge it against. If someone's take out is 25% and they lower it to 23% is that success.... if you put a platform together asking for 15% you realize people are just giving you lip service, saying that you had an affect when in actuality they are appeasing you so you go away happy.

I'll leave it at this. I signed up for HANA today, because it took nothing on my part but an email address. These, you say, add weight and significance when talking to people. I say it just makes you feel better. HANA stands for nothing, because there's nothing in that sign up sheet for me to sign on to and say I believe in. Something like a platform you do ASAP when people start recognizing that you have some "pull", and you start putting it in front of people that this is what you expect and anything less won't be a situation where you go away happy. If weeks turn to months turn to years and you don't have something concrete to show people and to gauge success and failure against you have a community of either pushovers happy to accept any small change as proof they "did" something or maybe even worse whiners who don't like the current situation but offer no specifics as to what they want and what would be economically feasible.

DeanT

07-14-2009, 04:51 PM

We want to show progress on several fronts that is very tangible. We have in some instances, and we detailed them in the newsletter (the ADW "strike", the CHRB takeout hikes etc).

The business took 100 years to be messed up. Five or six active members in HANA have had nine months to address them. Change and progress will not happen, or be able to be documented, overnight.

Currently we are trying to effect change in four instances:

1. Uniform reporting of payouts and probables on teletheater and simo screens North America wide

2. The TVG 25 cent betting fee

3. ADW contracts with one track

4. A proposal for securing the wagering pools to be placed in front of an already determined committee who makes these decisions.

I hope over the coming months we can show progress on those four issues, but with only a few volunteers, all of whom who work at daily jobs and have themselves and/or families to support, we can not say for sure when or if they will be achieved. All I can say is we are trying to make progress on those fronts. With limited resources that is a very cumbersome list. I wish there were 48 hours in a day, not 24.

InsideThePylons-MW

07-14-2009, 05:15 PM

Currently we are trying to effect change in four instances:

1. Uniform reporting of payouts and probables on teletheater and simo screens North America wide

A common sense issue which HANA should have no problem with because there should be zero opposition

2. The TVG 25 cent betting fee

A horrible joke on the horseplayer but at least they are up front and tell you about the joke they are playing on bettors. The exclusivity and heavy promotion of WDB, FE and MOH is 100 times worse because nowhere do they announce that these Canadian tracks are robbing you with larcenous takeouts on the bets they are promoting.

3. ADW contracts with one track

4. A proposal for securing the wagering pools to be placed in front of an already determined committee who makes these decisions.

Be very careful with this one. A complete update of the outdated tote system should be the only thing HANA is promoting. If HANA, through some miracle, gets some tracks/all tracks to go for it's shut off betting early plan.....it will be a handle disaster and HANA will effectively be a done issue.

ITP

DeanT

07-14-2009, 05:32 PM

1. Uniform reporting of payouts and probables on teletheater and simo screens North America wide

A common sense issue which HANA should have no problem with because there should be zero opposition

3. ADW contracts with one track

4. A proposal for securing the wagering pools to be placed in front of an already determined committee who makes these decisions.

Be very careful with this one. A complete update of the outdated tote system should be the only thing HANA is promoting. If HANA, through some miracle, gets some tracks/all tracks to go for it's shut off betting early plan.....it will be a handle disaster and HANA will effectively be a done issue.
1. Common sense yes, but to show just how intransigent the business is, we have had trouble making progress on this so far. We thought this one would be easy. It's not.

4. A more than fair point. It is something we have struggled with on this and discussed.We are hoping to spur discussion, and by doing so educate the business that this needs to be taken care of and fans are not happy with the situation.You are very correct that this, like other issues for a fledgling organization, must work or we will have trouble digging out of the hole. Finding issues that can be achieved right now is very hard. The business is very entrenched and married to the status quo.

machine

07-14-2009, 05:44 PM

Finding issues that can be achieved right now is very hard. The business is very entrenched and married to the status quo.

I commend HANA on fighting battles, but you're not fighting the war. There is no plan of attack, there is no flag to follow.

I'd say if you had a platform or something to rally around you'd find your members ready to pitch in and help out cause they could see where they fit in or could help.

InsideThePylons-MW

07-14-2009, 05:46 PM

The business is very entrenched and married to the status quo.

Trust me....that is a gross understatement. You are being way too kind.

I use to be kind to them to....about 10-15 years ago

Also Dean....Pope is at it again.....trying to get the KTA to implement his plan http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/crunch-time-for-cup-planning/comment-page-1/#comment-14764 post #'s 17 and 23

DeanT

07-14-2009, 05:57 PM

I'd say if you had a platform or something to rally around you'd find your members ready to pitch in and help out cause they could see where they fit in or could help.

I do not disagree one iota. Finding doable change and something that catches the imagination of players everywhere is a goal. Our blog has 350 posts in the last ten months about all kinds of issues. We monitor what seems to catch readers imagination and so on. We have our second meeting with a pollster scheduled next week as well. That list above we are working on was not pulled out of a hat, it came from horseplayers, via email, on the blog, on Pace and other chat boards, etc.

The AARP was founded in 1948 and it took them ten years to put out a magazine. It was 35 years to get going on insurance, which did not go over well, then about another ten years to find several issues like taxation where they became a lobbying force. I sure as hell hope that it does not take HANA that long to get going and force change, but one thing we do want is to be around in 50 years and have a pile of members. It has been the goal since day one - horseplayer groups, or factions, or whatever have come over the years and are gone as quickly as they have started. We are trying to not be another one of them.

DeanT

07-14-2009, 05:59 PM

Also Dean....Pope is at it again.....trying to get the KTA to implement his plan http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/crunch-time-for-cup-planning/comment-page-1/#comment-14764 post #'s 17 and 23

Oh my head. Like I said, there is not enough hours in the day.

Indulto

07-14-2009, 06:41 PM

400 pages. That's the size of a report that was created for the BC members, and I tend to agree 120% with Bill Christine and his Consultants by the Carload (http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/west-coast-wash/07142009-consultants-by-the-carload/), the last thing the industry needs is more consultants. I should know I guess I've been a quasi one for about a year now. I've been lucky enough to go to the NTRA annual meeting, the TPA's meeting, and am part of a group of fans talking about the BC.

... What holds back this industry is the inability and the reluctance to admit that past contracts and dealings do not make sense in 1989 let alone 2009. Everyone is so scared to try and word a new contract because it might cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down. The industry doesn't need a new era of marketing it needs a new era of trust and cooperation at the most basic level. The Contract.

... The time has come to be more specific. Change is always be coming to this sport, but all we get are … platitudes and affirmations. If you want change, if you want recognition, you must be specific. A lot more specific than below:

"We want open access to all track signals for all ADWs, takeouts that are competitive with other forms of gambling, the abolishment of breakage, severe penalties for trainers who cheat, and odds updates in real time. But most of all we want those who run racing to recognize us. The player matters. The player is a stakeholder too. Without money bet by us players the game would cease to exist."

Taking the idea that the current contracts in place between tracks on all levels are poorly acclimated to today's world and combining that with your focus on take out, breakage, and signal I ask you come up with a new contract. Most signal agreements between tracks are cumbersome, unwieldy, inefficient, take your pick. What the industry needs is a new starting point.

So what would a signal agreement look like? What should tracks strive to get to? I want to see real numbers, real contractual language, no more change, I want a finished product.… i think it's important for any grass roots movement to have a specific platform. This contract idea is just one plank, but I think it might be the most important.

I disagree it would be a waste of your time. Every thing you guys do here is about those contracts held between tracks. Rebates, for example, are more possible for some tracks than others because of the contracts they've signed. If a track is only making 5% on a WPS and it's customers want 3% rebates why should that track even offer the bet? Just one example of how contracts hold the things you want back.

The purpose of having a ready made contract (or at least as close to the real thing as possible) is so you can put it in someone's face. You can say, here's what you should be doing. It's easy to say track A's takeout is too high, but what's the right level? It's easy to say there should be rebates, but like the above example, where should they come from. …Soooo...... this is the part where you guys rally your troops and put pencil to paper. Start forming a coalition on these boards, have someone write up a draft, contact people off the record for some input, or a starting point, start polling people on what they want to see, start fact checking w/ people outside the group to make sure you don't pull a PETA (and say killing flies is the worst human offense possible) and look crazy. If you put out a contract that is competent, fair, well meaning, and SPECIFIC.... HANA holds the world in its hand.

HANA implores all tracks to move towards a contract that is fair and in accordance with today's business world. This base contract is fair, detailed, and will enable track management to get back to focusing on what's truly important, handle makers. No contract is plug and chug, but we hope this base contract acts as a guide to creating a new era in racing.machine,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts publicly. They are far too important to have fallen unheard outside the forest of pseudo grass roots. My concern is when that model contract is constructed, that it also reflects the concerns of the majority of racing’s customers -- those who bet for entertainment -- and not just horsemen, whales, and track/ADW executives.

What you're proposing is major reform throughout the industry, not just pecking away at various aspects. Like the BC committee just disbanded, a working group that does not represent ALL racing’s customers is not the way to go. I understand that a small group can make progress at a speed a large group cannot, but a true grass-roots movement reports progress and obtains feedback at frequent intervals to avoid going off in an unsanctioned direction, and to make certain that ideas are presented to all interested parties to trigger further enhancement of those ideas or even better ones, if possible.

Your reaction to Christine’s column triggered your starting this thread. In turn this thread has triggered some fine-tuning of my own thoughts. So should the development of your contract proceed. Perhaps this is the time to consider whether such a contract should be primarily based on racing as a sport or as a market. Consider the following as a starting point:

FUN<==ENTERTAINMENT<==SPORT<==COMPETITION<==ROOTING INTERESTS

PROFIT<==INVESTMENT<==MARKET<==MANIPULATION<==INANIMATE OBJECTS

I’ve been accused on this board of pitting horseplayers against one another, because I rebel at the concept that it is good business practice to give discounts to one’s largest customers to the DETRIMENT of one’s smaller customers, and that’s the effect that selective rebating (takeout discounting) based on wager volume has. These are not occasional purchases like airline tickets, they are a repetitive series of bets on independent outcomes, the takeout on which has risen to the point where it eventually grinds even skilled players into inactivity.

This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that this advantage -- provided primarily to those who make a living wagering on horse races, but not their non-professional competition in the pari-mutuel pools -- is endorsed by the horsemen, tracks, and ADWs. In my opinion, the contract must specify either an equally lower direct takeout levels on all wagers by any player or else an equal rebate rate on all wagers to all customers regardless of wagered amount.

So I applaud your idea of a contract, but until racing gets back to giving all its customers the same opportunity to win that their level of skill and/or luck warrants the way it used to – and the way casinos still do – a lot of effort could be expended without the desired result.... Irons in the fire is great, not being able to report on them not so great, how can you gauge your success if you don't have a bar to gauge it against. If someone's take out is 25% and they lower it to 23% is that success.... if you put a platform together asking for 15% you realize people are just giving you lip service, saying that you had an affect when in actuality they are appeasing you so you go away happy.

I'll leave it at this. I signed up for HANA today, because it took nothing on my part but an email address. These, you say, add weight and significance when talking to people. I say it just makes you feel better. HANA stands for nothing, because there's nothing in that sign up sheet for me to sign on to and say I believe in. Something like a platform you do ASAP when people start recognizing that you have some "pull", and you start putting it in front of people that this is what you expect and anything less won't be a situation where you go away happy. If weeks turn to months turn to years and you don't have something concrete to show people and to gauge success and failure against you have a community of either pushovers happy to accept any small change as proof they "did" something or maybe even worse whiners who don't like the current situation but offer no specifics as to what they want and what would be economically feasible.I commend HANA on fighting battles, but you're not fighting the war. There is no plan of attack, there is no flag to follow.

I'd say if you had a platform or something to rally around you'd find your members ready to pitch in and help out cause they could see where they fit in or could help.If ever what somebody had to say was more important than who they are, this was it.

Once again, machine, thanks for taking the time to contribute your thoughts..

rrbauer

07-14-2009, 07:01 PM

The AARP was founded in 1948 and it took them ten years to put out a magazine. It was 35 years to get going on insurance, which did not go over well, then about another ten years to find several issues like taxation where they became a lobbying force. I sure as hell hope that it does not take HANA that long to get going and force change, but one thing we do want is to be around in 50 years and have a pile of members. It has been the goal since day one - horseplayer groups, or factions, or whatever have come over the years and are gone as quickly as they have started. We are trying to not be another one of them.

It's disappointing to me for one of the movers and shakers within HANA to use the AARP as an example when AARP and HANA have very little in common other than a preponderence of their membership have gray hair. I really don't know what is being served by this reference, Dean. HANA needs agendas' that are designed to influence change. HANA is not selling insurance. The only way that HANA can influence change is to gain a seat at the industry table. Specifically, what is HANA's plan to gain that seat? It's a pretty simple question. What is HANA's plan? HANA's communication to its membership SUCKS; but, maybe that's because there is no communication other than the weekly pool party bulletins.

Does anyone at HANA know anything about running an organization? If so, I wish that they would step up and start running it; and, letting the membership in on the secret.

DeanT

07-14-2009, 07:33 PM

Thanks Machine for starting this, (eventhough we always tend to get slammed for being idiots sooner or later in these threads), because it was a good thing to address on the blog, which I just did.

We had an interesting discussion at Paceadvantage recently about how HANA should tackle issues, and what they should be tackling. This is a worthwhile discussion, so as we do often times when members ask questions or offer suggestions, we blog about it.

Generally, we get a lot of ideas thrown our way. Each board member probably has 200 things that they want to get done, members give their thoughts and that list grows and grows. I am happy to say we do not have a dearth of ideas, but we do have a dearth of help. An idea without help to achieve it, will be stuck in the idea vault, because we are a volunteer organization, and everyone who works daily at HANA has a job and a family.

We truly need to have people championing ideas, because we do not have enough hours in the day, nor the workforce to champion all of them ourselves. But when one champions an idea they become part of making it happen. The NTRA player panel can have ideas thrown their way and they can put their paid staff onto it. We have no paid staff. We have four or five people doing this in their spare time.

As an example, the HANA Pool Party was not Jeff or Theresia's idea, it was Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo's who were HANA members that none of us even knew personally. What they did was emailed us with a blog piece about trying to build a moveable amount of money per week to effect change. They offered to work at it, and wanted to see if it would be something worth pursuing. Ross and Mike, in effect, offered an idea, but most importantly offered to champion that idea. Ross now runs the Handletalks group over at Yahoo and runs the pool parties (with over 100 members, way to go Ross). Without Ross and Mike taking the ball and running with it, this idea never sees the light of day. We are lucky to have members like Ross and Mike at HANA.

This was not unlike another idea that was thrown our way in March, however the end result was completely the opposite. Rich Bauer, god bless him, as he is about as passionate a horseplayer there is, offered out an idea about a handicapping contest. He wanted it to be done at Tampa Bay Downs (a track very player friendly) and he would supply the prize money. It was a fantastic idea that we all loved. We would help promote HANA, and Rich can support us with the prize money. We went to it as it was an awesome idea.

Unfortunately the task needed several things: Software to run the contest, and/or some programming. A contest master. And numerous promotions on the web (we wanted to try and get mentioned everywhere, as at Paceadvantage.com we were already well known). Jeff worked on this for a bit, then life and other issues got in the way. Jeff was programming the website for the track ratings among other items for the site, and working on HANA Day at Keeneland, (he also had a big project for his own job at that time). How about Bill, another board member? He was finishing the track ratings and working on Version 2.0 to be published. This was a huge job. Me? I was working on the HANA Ratings with bloodhorse. We had to edit and re-edit ten pieces of over 12,000 words, not to mention write them. In addition I was tasked with marketing it over the web, and issuing the releases to various entities, answering questions and blogging about it (not to mention hitting all the chat boards to promote it). I had to present at a conference for HANA at the end of the month as well, so that was going to take time. Theresia? She was in charge of HANA Day. It was also tax time at work, so she was working 14 hour days already. She was working on getting quotes from all the HANA tracks as well. John? He works for a TV station and they had a month long project on and he could not help. John was already in charge of another project for HANA anyway, and even if he had the time he could not get this going. Rich was retired and clearly could not champion the idea, and frankly with the amount he offered us for the contest, he in no way should have been expected to run it. It would have been nothing more than a slap in the face to someone who wanted to help, to ask him to find people to run it.

We asked around for some web help for the contest, found none, so we had to put that fantastic idea on the backburner. It was an absolute shame. We had someone wanting to help like Rich, with a great idea and we could not execute it. We were happy Rich gave us a donation anyway. We hope to use that money on polling, database software, webhosting and a few other items.

So I guess that is it in a nutshell: We love ideas, we love the passion, we love members giving us those ideas. But we really need people to champion them - to take the ball and run with it.

If anyone reads anything on the Mission Statement, has an idea, or might even want to add to the mission statement to force change in our sport, here is the best way to go about it:

* Offer out your idea and email it to us at info@HANAweb.com
* Detail what needs to be done to force the change
* Come to a meeting and present it to members
* Offer out ways in which you can help, or if you know a group who will help achieve that goal, by championing that idea.

We have had a couple of you do exactly that, like Ross and Mike, and we can not thank you enough. Right now each board member is flush on each issue that we are working on presently. If something new is added we need the help to get it done. We are calling on players for that help and if you want to offer some, our door is open and we can not thank you enough.

Thanks for reading and thanks to everyone who has helped HANA in the past, and their continued support in the future.

Cangamble

07-14-2009, 07:39 PM

I had to do my usual sniping on the Paulick Report:
"Whatever, if you drop the ADW to 30%, there will be no to little room for rebates. I know that personally, I wind up betting 3-4 times as much when getting around a 7% rebate.

You want to destroy horse racing completely? Follow Mr. Pope. He is absolutely out of touch with reality with his proposal. But I’m sure he is a nice guy just the same."

InsideThePylons-MW

07-14-2009, 08:28 PM

It is just shocking that these industry dolts like the KTA will even listen to Pope.

What is even more amazing is that they listen to him and then spend time, resources and money "vetting his proposal" with the thought of maybe implementing it.

Just incredible.

rrbauer

07-14-2009, 08:39 PM

Thanks Machine for starting this, (eventhough we always tend to get slammed for being idiots sooner or later in these threads), because it was a good thing to address on the blog, which I just did.

This was not unlike another idea that was thrown our way in March, however the end result was completely the opposite. Rich Bauer, god bless him, as he is about as passionate a horseplayer there is, offered out an idea about a handicapping contest. He wanted it to be done at Tampa Bay Downs (a track very player friendly) and he would supply the prize money. It was a fantastic idea that we all loved. We would help promote HANA, and Rich can support us with the prize money. We went to it as it was an awesome idea.

Unfortunately the task needed several things: Software to run the contest, and/or some programming. A contest master. And numerous promotions on the web (we wanted to try and get mentioned everywhere, as at Paceadvantage.com we were already well known). Jeff worked on this for a bit, then life and other issues got in the way. Jeff was programming the website for the track ratings among other items for the site, and working on HANA Day at Keeneland, (he also had a big project for his own job at that time). How about Bill, another board member? He was finishing the track ratings and working on Version 2.0 to be published. This was a huge job. Me? I was working on the HANA Ratings with bloodhorse. We had to edit and re-edit ten pieces of over 12,000 words, not to mention write them. In addition I was tasked with marketing it over the web, and issuing the releases to various entities, answering questions and blogging about it (not to mention hitting all the chat boards to promote it). I had to present at a conference for HANA at the end of the month as well, so that was going to take time. Theresia? She was in charge of HANA Day. It was also tax time at work, so she was working 14 hour days already. She was working on getting quotes from all the HANA tracks as well. John? He works for a TV station and they had a month long project on and he could not help. John was already in charge of another project for HANA anyway, and even if he had the time he could not get this going. Rich was retired and clearly could not champion the idea, and frankly with the amount he offered us for the contest, he in no way should have been expected to run it. It would have been nothing more than a slap in the face to someone who wanted to help, to ask him to find people to run it.

We asked around for some web help for the contest, found none, so we had to put that fantastic idea on the backburner. It was an absolute shame. We had someone wanting to help like Rich, with a great idea and we could not execute it. We were happy Rich gave us a donation anyway. We hope to use that money on polling, database software, webhosting and a few other items.

This is not the entire story, and Jeff Platt knows it. The idea was either Tampa Bay in March or Keeneland in April. I even put Jeff in touch with a person who had software that was being used for a contest at another site. I did not push on that arrangement because I know volunteer work for what it is. But, I offered to pay this third party to refine the software to fit HANA's requirements, whatever they were. I find it absolutely uncomprehensible that there was ZERO feedback to me from Jeff about the contest grading software or what was being discussed among the HANA power brokers regarding the contests. What Jeff relayed to me was that he was seeking a solution with Mike at the PA board for grading the contest. That was all. Why couldn't the contest be graded manually? Was that ever offered out as a possibility with member participation being requested? When/where was help requested for grading the contest?

I understand that this is dirty laundry. But, it goes towards explaining the unimaginative approaches being pursued by HANA leadership. HANA's opportunity to make an impact on the game is very limited. HANA will not succeed at squat by being the nice guys. HANA has NO STANDING in the industry power structure. NONE. That should be their first and foremost obstacle to overcome.

I really don't think that HANA benefits from a bunch of PR strokes about its volunteers, yada, yada. Either you sign on and get on; or, you get out.

machine

07-14-2009, 08:40 PM

That is pretty much my thesis right there.

He has a proposal. You all (and I guess me now that I'm a member) do not.

He is invited to go places and talk, we post on this bulletin board.

As for

"Perhaps this is the time to consider whether such a contract should be primarily based on racing as a sport or as a mark"

This is not an issue. A signal contract doesn't involve the horseplayers it affects them, whether they treat horse racing as a sport or as a mark doesn't mean they should pay different amount of money.

Track A and Track B hereby enter into an agreement to purchase each others signal. Of the takeout generated ___% will go to the host track ____% will go to bet taker ____% will go to horseman ___% will go to the small fees that always cause rounding problems, i don't know you get my drift. The take out on WPS should be ___%, on intrarace exotics ___% and multiple race exotics ___%

machine

07-14-2009, 08:42 PM

Is anyone watching whale wars? Richard Bauer is to HANA what Sea Shepherd is to Greenpeace? I gotta say I'm a Sea Shepherd kinda guy.

InsideThePylons-MW

07-14-2009, 08:48 PM

Is anyone watching whale wars? Richard Bauer is to HANA what Sea Shepherd is to Greenpeace? I gotta say I'm a Sea Shepherd kinda guy.

I like to make Sea Shepherds look like they are pacifists.

Charli125

07-14-2009, 09:26 PM

HANA sucks, it's been 9 months, they should have solved everything by now. We should all have quit our jobs and be sitting around smoking cubans while getting rich off of our rebates at this point. I can't believe this FREE organization that I signed up for, with a few volunteers doing all of the work hasn't had more of an effect on this tiny, well organized industry...
I understand why this industry is so f**ked. If the players on this board can't even get together on something and quit bitching, how in the hell do we expect the players, owners, tracks, adw's, etc. to come to an agreement?

Ever single post on the HANA section devolves into how much HANA sucks and how the board doesn't know what they're doing. I understand the frustration, especially in Rich's case as he has done more than just post on the message board, and appreciate a bit of spirited back and forth(such as Machine's original post), but a little positivity wouldn't hurt you guys. This is going to be frustrating at first. As Dean said earlier, it took racing a long time to get this broken, it's gonna take some time to fix it.

Wow, I think I just used my first emoticon since I've been on the internet.

highnote

07-14-2009, 10:05 PM

The reason for this is because the Inter-State Horse Racing Act is so poorly worded that at any time Congress could pretty much say, "This doesn't mean what you think it means" and poof there goes the industry.

If Congress wanted to end internet betting on horseracing wouldn't they have done so by now? What have they been waiting for?

If you want change, if you want recognition, you must be specific. A lot more specific than below:

"We want open access to all track signals for all ADWs, takeouts that are competitive with other forms of gambling, the abolishment of breakage, severe penalties for trainers who cheat, and odds updates in real time. But most of all we want those who run racing to recognize us. The player matters. The player is a stakeholder too. Without money bet by us players the game would cease to exist."

I'm interested in knowing why you think any racetrack or adw is going to look at a contract written by HANA and make it binding?

Taking the idea that the current contracts in place between tracks on all levels are poorly acclimated to today's world and combining that with your focus on take out, breakage, and signal I ask you come up with a new contract. Most signal agreements between tracks are cumbersome, unwieldy, inefficient, take your pick. What the industry needs is a new starting point.

How do you know the current contracts are poorly acclimated? Personally, I've never seen one. It sounds like you have. Can you share one with us? That would be enlightening.

Would you be willing to write up a copy of a contract and share it with HANA or everyone here on PA to get the ball rolling? Many people would be interested in having a look.

So what would a signal agreement look like? What should tracks strive to get to? I want to see real numbers, real contractual language, no more change, I want a finished product.

I agree. Can you help us out here?

chickenhead

07-14-2009, 11:16 PM

might as well roll out my old horse for another go round. A starting point for discussions I guess:

A while back I did some thinking about what a universal model could look like, and that I thought made sense from a revenue sharing point of view, but also made explicit the sort of investments that needed to be made for this business to exist.

I do think the industry can afford to pay more than 3% on a 20% signal to the host track and horsemen. Part of that is the elimination of the subsidies in the form of source market fees. So in the following, we are assuming all fees paid for the signal are going where they belong, to the host track (making that actually happen, good luck). And of course, the total fees already paid are well above 3%, so that is a moot issue.

The agreement should be written as a percentage of the takeout, not a percentage of handle. This allows for takeouts to fall without adjusting agreements. Suggested starting point:

Track: 27.5%
Purses: 27.5%
ADW: 45%

Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 5.5%
Purses: 5.5%
ADW: 9%

This represents an increase in revenues for tracks and purses over current agreements. This is however only payable by an ADW that has one severe limitation, a significant reduction in takeout in the form of rebates, a key driver for a large percentage of our business, is not possible under this fee structure.

But what we need is some flexibility, we want a wide variety of ADW’s out there, experimenting with various incentive programs. So I would suggest the following:

1.) Rebates can be made solely at the discretion of the ADW.
2.) The design of their rebate program is likewise solely up to them.
3.) They can rebate any amount they want by way of a reduction in each of the three parties share, up to a certain limit.

The ADW can rebate up to a total of 6% of handle, with the reduction preserving the original % of takeout. Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 3.15%
Purses: 3.15%
ADW: 6.3%

For each party reducing its share, they are rewarded with a higher handle. Everyone shares the costs, everyone shares the benefits. The ADW can, at their own discretion, rebate beyond this 6% of handle level, and some would, but the remainder of that rebate would come from their share alone. So for instance an 8% rebate regime would see tracks and purses stay constant at 3.15%, and the ADW operating funds would drop to 4.3% of handle. This would be on the most price aggressive side of the spectrum.

The host track and the ADW could, if they come to agreement, offer any sort of innovative features they could come up with, with an equal investment from all parties to cover the costs -- not just cash rebates.

The only key distinction is that rebates, if the ADW chose to make them, are solely at their discretion up to a certain level.

The idea is a single payment model and structure that will work for every ADW and track. There is no need for a multitude of different models, one dynamic one will do. I believe the tracks should want competition amongst the ADW, should want them to do the sort of experimenting that will ultimately find the best product mix for the customers (price and services). Give wide signal availability, under a single unified model that has specific protections for the entire spectrum of business models to exist -- and let the market tell us which one is best.

Based on discussions with ADW operators and some horsemen, I believe these numbers work.

Warren Henry

07-15-2009, 12:35 AM

might as well roll out my old horse for another go round. A starting point for discussions I guess:

A while back I did some thinking about what a universal model could look like, and that I thought made sense from a revenue sharing point of view, but also made explicit the sort of investments that needed to be made for this business to exist.

I do think the industry can afford to pay more than 3% on a 20% signal to the host track and horsemen. Part of that is the elimination of the subsidies in the form of source market fees. So in the following, we are assuming all fees paid for the signal are going where they belong, to the host track (making that actually happen, good luck). And of course, the total fees already paid are well above 3%, so that is a moot issue.

The agreement should be written as a percentage of the takeout, not a percentage of handle. This allows for takeouts to fall without adjusting agreements. Suggested starting point:

Track: 27.5%
Purses: 27.5%
ADW: 45%

Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 5.5%
Purses: 5.5%
ADW: 9%

This represents an increase in revenues for tracks and purses over current agreements. This is however only payable by an ADW that has one severe limitation, a significant reduction in takeout in the form of rebates, a key driver for a large percentage of our business, is not possible under this fee structure.

But what we need is some flexibility, we want a wide variety of ADW’s out there, experimenting with various incentive programs. So I would suggest the following:

1.) Rebates can be made solely at the discretion of the ADW.
2.) The design of their rebate program is likewise solely up to them.
3.) They can rebate any amount they want by way of a reduction in each of the three parties share, up to a certain limit.

The ADW can rebate up to a total of 6% of handle, with the reduction preserving the original % of takeout. Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 3.15%
Purses: 3.15%
ADW: 6.3%

For each party reducing its share, they are rewarded with a higher handle. Everyone shares the costs, everyone shares the benefits. The ADW can, at their own discretion, rebate beyond this 6% of handle level, and some would, but the remainder of that rebate would come from their share alone. So for instance an 8% rebate regime would see tracks and purses stay constant at 3.15%, and the ADW operating funds would drop to 4.3% of handle. This would be on the most price aggressive side of the spectrum.

The host track and the ADW could, if they come to agreement, offer any sort of innovative features they could come up with, with an equal investment from all parties to cover the costs -- not just cash rebates.

The only key distinction is that rebates, if the ADW chose to make them, are solely at their discretion up to a certain level.

The idea is a single payment model and structure that will work for every ADW and track. There is no need for a multitude of different models, one dynamic one will do. I believe the tracks should want competition amongst the ADW, should want them to do the sort of experimenting that will ultimately find the best product mix for the customers (price and services). Give wide signal availability, under a single unified model that has specific protections for the entire spectrum of business models to exist -- and let the market tell us which one is best.

Based on discussions with ADW operators and some horsemen, I believe these numbers work.

Sounds like a fair levelheaded arrangement. So, it has no chance to be implemented :bang:

Indulto

07-15-2009, 01:08 AM

… As for

"Perhaps this is the time to consider whether such a contract should be primarily based on racing as a sport or as a mark[et]"

This is not an issue. A signal contract doesn't involve the horseplayers it affects them, whether they treat horse racing as a sport or as a mark[et] doesn't mean they should pay different amount of money.

Track A and Track B hereby enter into an agreement to purchase each others signal. Of the takeout generated ___% will go to the host track ____% will go to bet taker ____% will go to horseman ___% will go to the small fees that always cause rounding problems, i don't know you get my drift. The take out on WPS should be ___%, on intrarace exotics ___% and multiple race exotics ___%I'm glad you responded. You’re not the first to reject the Sport vs. Market comparison when deployed to gain traction for the concept of equally lower takeout for all, but I’d be interested in your expanding upon what you think does or "doesn't mean they should pay different amount of money” and to whom.

Rich Bauer contacted me about using the Derby Contest software for a HANA contest. It is doable, but would take quite a few mods up front to make it more "turnkey" for a user besides me.

That's really no big deal, as these are all things I always meant to get around to doing anyhow. The only issue is timing, as I'm kind of busy with regular work right now. I might have trouble with a March contest, but April would be doable.

I'll create you a phony userid for you to look around, and maybe you can "pretend" wager on the TupDerby this weekend to see what it all looks like.

Your site would have to have PHP and MySQL, as well as some sort of sendmail interface (preferably from PHP), and the scoring is done in Excel.

Terry I saw several immediate problems with this and decided that implementing Terry's software in time to do a contest at Tampa (whether you paid him or not) wasn't realistic.

First, in Terry's own words: It is doable, but would take quite a few mods up front to make it more "turnkey" for a user besides me. Second, in Terry's own words:I'm kind of busy with regular work right now. I might have trouble with a March contest, but April would be doable.Richard, having experience as a programmer I know first hand what that means in terms of handing over source code to someone else. Translated into layman's terms it usually means take the time period between now and the "might be doable by then" target date and double it or even triple it.

The last day of live racing at Tampa that I have in my database took place on 4/05/2009. If I were going to have HANA promote a Tampa contest to 600 plus HANA members, the words "I might have trouble with a March contest" wasn't in my opinion as an experienced software developer going to cut it. I wasn't about to take a chance on promoting a contest without proven contest software. That decision was mine. I take full responsibility for it.

I should probably point out that I'm an extremely busy man where every hour in every day counts - and that I DO have a life outside of racing.

But sticking to racing...

At the time I was very deeply involved in a number of program upgrades for JCapper. Still am. (Ask my customers what THEY think of those program upgrades - or at least the ones they've seen so far.) I toyed with the idea of asking Terry for his contest source code and finishing it myself - but decided against in favor of keeping promises already made to my customers.

At the time I was also very much involved in planning for and setting up meetings with top management at Keeneland, Equibase, and HDW Data to take place in April.

Richard, you remember those meetings right? You sat in on some of them did you not? I certainly thought they were both eye opening and extremely productive. I also came away with the impression that everyone in the room - at least from the HANA side of things - had a similar experience. Was your impression/experience otherwise?

While the offer to use Terry's contest software was greatly appreciated (it really was) it just wasn't workable for a contest at Tampa.

I didn't give up on doing a Tampa contest though.

I contacted Mike here at PA about the possibility of using his PA Downs interface for running such a contest. He got back to me quickly but said he was currently making some changes to the PA Downs software as well.

Another no go.

I actually considered doing a contest where the players post their selections in a thread. However, when I visualized 600 plus HANA members all posting multiple selections in a thread it occurred to me what an absolute bitch such a beast might be to score... and it was at that point that I decided to scrap the idea of doing a Tampa contest.

I decided instead to focus on making the best use of my time in other areas.

HANA's communication to its membership SUCKS;I get it Richard. I dropped the ball in telling you that HANA wasn't going to be able to make your very good suggestion of a contest at Tampa work.

For that I apologize.

But that's it. To those who think HANA should be a bunch of militants running around blowing up race tracks... I'll not apologize for aking a different approach to things. I'm not about to apologize for quietly growing membership and working behind the scenes to: gain a true understanding of problems that plague the industry and effect change from there.

If you want to blow up race tracks go start your own organization.

-jp

.

Jeff P

07-15-2009, 04:12 AM

Want a HANA Flag to rally around?

Here's what HANA stands for:

1. Signal availability - ALL track signals to be available at all times on the lineups of ALL licensed ADWs. No blackouts. No exclusive deals to the contrary. Period. It isn't about fighting to get a bigger piece of the pie. It's about realizing that the good of the game and growing the game comes first and getting the product out to the customer at a reasonable price is the first priority.

2. Takeout Reduction - A mechanism needs to be put in place so that takeout can be adjusted to the true optimal pricing point. What's an optimal pricing point? Money flowing to state coffers and money made available for purses is a percentage of handle. Handle is elastic. 100 percent takeout would very quickly drive handle downward to zero. Zero takeout would spark an enormous increase in handle. Somewhere in between is the point where handle produces max revenue for state coffers and max money available for purses. Right now takeout is far too high... too high compared to other forms of gambling that racing competes with... high takeout is a big part of the reason racing has tried to rely on slots (a lower takeout gambling game where the house edge IS very close to the optimal pricing point) for welfare. Instead of relying on slots, racing should COMPETE with slots. Where's the optimal pricing point? My belief is that it's somewhere between 9 and 11 percent. That's 9 to 11 percent takeout for every wager type in every pool - all the time - 365 days a year. But we'll never know for sure what the optimal pricing point is until a mechanism is put in place that requires the industry to seek it out.

3. Drugs - Racing has a perception problem. Non horseplayers view racing as a game that's not on the up and up. Horseplayers view the game the same way too. When the industry gives a trainer a slap on the wrist for his Xth drug positive it sends a message to players and would be players that there is no integrity in racing - none whatsoever. This has to change. Racing needs to be regulated in a way that there are no questions whatsoever about the integrity of the game. The long term goal here is a national drug policy with teeth - where the rules are based on common sense but are the same everywhere - and where the rule breakers are banned from the game.

4. Pool Integrity. Racing has a perception problem. Duh. Non horseplayers view racing as a game that's not on the up and up. Horseplayers view the game the same way too. Again, duh. When the industry insists on using an obsolete tote system that enables the odds to change during the running of the race... When the industry knowingly allows bets to be cancelled after the race has started (it's called the cancel delay) it sends a message to players and non players alike that there is no integrity in racing - none whatsoever. This has to change. Again, racing needs to be regulated in such a way that there are no questions whatsoever about the integrity of the game. It's time the industry invested in its own future and created a modern secure tote system fast enough to render odds and payoffs in real time.

If there were a HANA flag, THESE would be the rallying points.

-jp

.

That's the point where takeout is lowered to the point where it sparks enough of a handle increase

InsideThePylons-MW

07-15-2009, 04:57 AM

To those who think HANA should be a bunch of militants running around blowing up race tracks... I'll not apologize for aking a different approach to things. I'm not about to apologize for quietly growing membership and working behind the scenes to: gain a true understanding of problems that plague the industry and effect change from there.

If you want to blow up race tracks go start your own organization.

Are you serious?

You can't see the difference between blowing up racetracks and the perception that HANA has become so friendly with racing entities that when they commit a horrendous act against horseplayers, HANA is mysteriously silent.

During your TVG interview, they said they were horseplayer friendly, for the horseplayer, lower takeout is great etc. while charging 25 cents per bet. Now they've gone to promoting tracks which are 100% anti-horseplayer (many of your members agree including vocal ones like Cangamble and rrbauer) and maybe it's tough to say anything bad about them because they gave you a TV platform. Even though that may be totally false, the perception makes it arguably plausible.

I know this may sound funny, but I was on the phone for over an hour tonight with the head of a national racing orginization/governing body and near the end of our call he asked me "do you know anything about the betting group that moves around from track to track and bets on a different one each week".....after a second or two I snapped and realized he was talking about HANA. I told him what you are about and what I thought about you (believe it or not.. 98% good ;) ). So you are getting your name out there to people.

Hell effing yes I'm serious. I want change in the above four areas. Staging protests and boycotts and getting in shouting matches with industry leaders isn't going to effect change.

Well, boycotts might once we have a much larger member base. <G>

Sitting down at the table with them and making them aware of customer needs and wants - and shining a spotlight on areas where those needs and wants are ignored the most IS getting us some traction. We've been at it just under a year and in that time I HAVE seen an attitude shift starting to take place within the industry. Whereas I saw absolutely none before we got started. Maybe that change is subtle. And maybe it's based on the fact that they at least know that we will shine a spotlight on them (which they hate btw)...

It would be a whole lot easier to hand a track or a horsemen's association a "zero handle weekend" if we had 75,000 members. Or maybe even the right 7 or 8 members. And maybe that's what it'll utlimately take to get the kind of change enacted that we want to see.

But yes, I'm completely serious when I say I hope it never has to come to that. I'm completely serious when I say it's in the industry's best interest to effect change on their own and do it right now.

Because without sweeping change a whole lot of tracks currently on the bubble are going to close in the next few years. And that won't be because of HANA. It'll happen because those in charge of racing lack the vision to make the very changes that are so desperately needed - and because they deliberately chose to ignore the recommendations of all the panels and outside consultants that they hired - and because they chose to ignore something that no business should ever ignore: the importance of the customer and customer needs and wants.

You can't see the difference between blowing up racetracks and the perception that HANA has become so friendly with racing entities that when they commit a horrendous act against horseplayers, HANA is mysteriously silent.

During your TVG interview, they said they were horseplayer friendly, for the horseplayer, lower takeout is great etc. while charging 25 cents per bet. Now they've gone to promoting tracks which are 100% anti-horseplayer (many of your members agree including vocal ones like Cangamble and rrbauer) and maybe it's tough to say anything bad about them because they gave you a TV platform. Even though that may be totally false, the perception makes it arguably plausible.
Arguably plausible or not such a perception would be severely misguided.

For the record:

The fee of 25 cents per bet is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Any bettor who pays a separate fee to bet above and beyond the takeout should take his business elsewhere. Immediately. Whether they had me on TV or not is completely irrelevant. If you are paying a fee to bet at TVG (or anywhere else for that matter) you need to know that there are far better options out there.

Woodbine's 28.3 percent takeout on trifectas is an obscenity. So is their policy about hiking takeout to Woodbine levels for the Canadian player who manages to hit a tri at an American track with a lesser takeout. I find that practice deplorable and a disgrace to racing.

BTW, the HANA Board had a phone conversation with an industry exec Tues night. The topic of discussion was pool integrity. The disconnect between the industry and the player in this one area is so large as to be almost laughable.

-jp

.

Cangamble

07-15-2009, 09:40 AM

Arguably plausible or not such a perception would be severely misguided.

For the record:

The fee of 25 cents per bet is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Any bettor who pays a separate fee to bet above and beyond the takeout should take his business elsewhere. Immediately. Whether they had me on TV or not is completely irrelevant. If you are paying a fee to bet at TVG (or anywhere else for that matter) you need to know that there are far better options out there.

Woodbine's 28.3 percent takeout on trifectas is an obscenity. So is their policy about hiking takeout to Woodbine levels for the Canadian player who manages to hit a tri at an American track with a lesser takeout. I find that practice deplorable and a disgrace to racing.

BTW, the HANA Board had a phone conversation with an industry exec Tues night. The topic of discussion was pool integrity. The disconnect between the industry and the player in this one area is so large as to be almost laughable.

-jp

.
Just to correct you, Woodbine's tri take is now 27%. They leap frogged from 68th highest to 66th highest. They did it to rationalize hiking Magna, Tracknet, and California tri takes to 27% from 25%.

machine

07-15-2009, 10:38 AM

Want a HANA Flag to rally around?

Here's what HANA stands for:

1. Signal availability -...

2. Takeout Reduction - ...

3. Drugs - ...

4. Pool Integrity. ...

If there were a HANA flag, THESE would be the rallying points.

That's a good start. But those are platitudes that anyone can say and feel good about. Maybe it's time you sat down and expanded on those thoughts.

Signal availability - The argument for exclusivity is because TVG puts the race on TV in places where TVG doesn't accept the bet. Don't ignore that, find a solution so racing is encouraged to be on TV. A section discussing signal availability would also take a look at the rules and laws governing. If you are able to talk to executives find out the hurdles and find out what give and take there is.

Takeout Reduction - Define Mechanism. There are levels of elasticity and inelasticity, do the study and find out how elastic. (If there is a study this is why you need a platform so people can go learn). Maybe a 5 year plan where tracks sign on as a group to lower take out %'s at a time. Something like this would have to be done in coordination w/ contract rewriting and signal negotiation. I've talked to racing exec too, and they don't make a lot of dough off what should be their sole focus, their signal.

Drugs - Mountaineer, I'm told, doesn't have the best backstretch for horse welfare and safety, they aren't one of the first tracks to be tested by the NTRA because the NTRA doesn't want a black eye right out of the box, and yet HANA will have a pool party there. Thoughts?

Pool Integrity - Everyone at HANA is ready to give more money to those accepting the wager over the people putting on the show, a group completely left out is the tote. Their margins are razor thin and their is no impetus or money to improve current conditions.

When you're talking to racing executives you are speaking on behalf of your membership. It would be nice to know a little more than 562 words on our platform. And have the info you use to back up your points.

Even I have a hard time believing more money should go to the wager taker over the people making the wager possible.

Opinion follows (that I'm sure would get me kicked out of HANA had it a platform one had to sign up for)- - -
And someone else asked me about sport vs game. I'm a big believer that most people if involved as a sport first move to wanting to wager on it. Is the Super Bowl popular because people wager on it, or do people wager on it because it's so popular? So, I don't believe takeout should depend on either, there is a level that is optimal for everyone. Furthermore, If I bet blackjack at a casino, the casino doesn't give me dollar bills to bet more blackjack it gives me a free room and a meal so i will continue to bet blackjack. Asking the ADW's to give money back is only possible because they have such a sweet deal going in that they get the lion's share of revenue for a product they don't create (Though you all hate Pope, there is no other business that follows that model, not even Itunes [.10 to band, .65 to recording industry, .35 to itunes). They take advantage of a broken system and pass on that advantage to the player so that you're on their side. If more money went back to the place putting on the show (and nothing is guaranteed) maybe you'd get a better show and a lower take out. Just because the ADW's offer rebates doesn't mean that they aren't screwing you.

DeanT

07-15-2009, 10:57 AM

If more money went back to the place putting on the show (and nothing is guaranteed) maybe you'd get a better show and a lower take out. Just because the ADW's offer rebates doesn't mean that they aren't screwing you.

If HANA advocated giving the tracks more cash from ADW we would get hung on a tree. Players have been getting screwed by racetracks for so long they would have a right to hang us from a tree. ITP alone, would blow up HANA, along with half the membership. Racetracks will not, and never have, given players a fair shake. They have had 100 years to do it.

We had a push to get Chick's ADW write up early on (see his bare bones write up on the last page, as well as Roark's I posted on page one). We then pushed it again during the Fred Pope thing on Paulick. It was published and not picked up by anyone in the media. We wrote up our idea and asked Ray if we could post our piece via ADW changes and he had a busy week and did not wish to run with it. It got little play from membership and did not seem to capture the imagination of anyone. It is an important point and I do not disagree that it is not optimum by any stretch, but members, the media and anyone that could help us grow met it with a yawn. We had to move on to something else at that point.

As John asked above, if you are passionate about this issue Chick is as well. If you guys write something up and it makes sense to everyone we will be happy to run with it again to see if it gains a following.

As for a "better " split, we have that here in Canada through HPIbets across the nation. Purses get about 9% of rake, the track gets 9% and the rest pays for other stuff for ADW. Rebates are pretty much zero, players look to offshore and have left and are leaving it in droves, wagering is down and the service is struggling. If you bet about 100k though, you do get a nice sweater with the points.

andymays

07-15-2009, 11:10 AM

Can anyone tell me if it's at all possible (legal) to have a non profit ADW for HANA members only? Can you imagine the increase in membership?

Wouldn't HANA's status as a non profit afford them special rights and operational monetary discounts that all non profits enjoy?

How could an ADW that was not for profit benefit by a non profit status?

Legally speaking, could anyone stop something like this from being done given that HANA in a not for profit membership?

Would working towards the non profit end shake things up a little in the industry?

Please keep in mind that I'm not as detail oriented as most of you but I believe there is some wiggle room here. Just moving in that direction would force some of these ADW's to wake up right?

Cangamble

07-15-2009, 11:11 AM

I'm a big believer that most people if involved as a sport first move to wanting to wager on it. Is the Super Bowl popular because people wager on it, or do people wager on it because it's so popular?
************************
If there was no betting on football, I'm sure that popularity would drop significantly. The reason many people watch football is because one person or more bets it, throws parties, their spouse and friends have no choice but to get into football if they want to spend Sundays with that person, and then they become fans too, and many start betting as well.

So, I don't believe takeout should depend on either, there is a level that is optimal for everyone.
*********************
Just because some people become fans first and some become bettors first, doesn't mean that the overwhelming support doesn't come from one, and I say it is the bettor.

Furthermore, If I bet blackjack at a casino, the casino doesn't give me dollar bills to bet more blackjack it gives me a free room and a meal so i will continue to bet blackjack.
**********************
Online poker gives rakebacks. Blackjack take is low enough, I'm surprised the casinos have been giving material rebates for such a long time on top of that. Maybe they know something the racing execs don't.

Asking the ADW's to give money back is only possible because they have such a sweet deal going in that they get the lion's share of revenue for a product they don't create (Though you all hate Pope, there is no other business that follows that model, not even Itunes [.10 to band, .65 to recording industry, .35 to itunes). They take advantage of a broken system and pass on that advantage to the player so that you're on their side.
***************************
ADWs are the closest thing racing has to the free market.

If more money went back to the place putting on the show (and nothing is guaranteed) maybe you'd get a better show and a lower take out.
**************************
Racetracks and horsemen used to get all the pie before simulcasting and the internet and phone betting. What did they do? They gradually raised takeouts.
Woodbine is as close to a monopoly as there is in racing and just look at their takeouts. Philly and Penn are getting a huge subsidy (or at least they were) and their takeouts on triactors are 30 and 31%
********************************

Just because the ADW's offer rebates doesn't mean that they aren't screwing you.
***********************
How are they screwing anyone?

miesque

07-15-2009, 12:40 PM

Can anyone tell me if it's at all possible (legal) to have a non profit ADW for HANA members only? Can you imagine the increase in membership?

Wouldn't HANA's status as a non profit afford them special rights and operational monetary discounts that all non profits enjoy?

How could an ADW that was not for profit benefit by a non profit status?

Legally speaking, could anyone stop something like this from being done given that HANA in a not for profit membership?

Would working towards the non profit end shake things up a little in the industry?

Please keep in mind that I'm not as detail oriented as most of you but I believe there is some wiggle room here. Just moving in that direction would force some of these ADW's to wake up right?

At best, the IRS would charge UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax) on ADW revenue, it would not be tax-free, and at worst you lose exempt status and become categorized as a for profit entity. You may not think its unrelated business income but an ADW has nothing to do with being an advocacy group.

andymays

07-15-2009, 12:47 PM

At best, the IRS would charge UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax) on ADW revenue, it would not be tax-free, and at worst you lose exempt status and become categorized as a for profit entity. You may not think its unrelated business income but an ADW has nothing to do with being an advocacy group.

Can't you have a non profit with a for profit subsidiary? Something similar to what is done in the insurance industry.

I'm talking about only charging enough to pay expenses as a service to HANA members. HANA members would bet at a discounted rate!???? or would get some type of rebate.

I know rebates are a touchy subject in certain areas but when you are a non profit don't you have some wiggle room according to the IRS to give back some of the profit to the members?

miesque

07-15-2009, 12:47 PM

I forgot to add that in addition to the restrictions I mentioned above (because you could start a for profit arm if you really wanted to, much like the Jockey Club has with entities like Equibase) I think it would be a big mistake for HANA to get into the ADW business, especially at this point in its existence. Now maybe 5 to 10 years down the road when its a sizable mature company and looking to expand its revenue flows and has the stability and also individuals with the necessary experience to give such an endeavor a reasonable chance of success and most importantly, had accrued a substantial capital base in which to operate (and make no bones about it, you need serious capital to run an ADW and be able to pay people instantaneously upon hitting a big score), not to mention the legislative clout to get through the red tape of some racing jurisdictions, then maybe it would be something to look into. Any move to do such prior to what I listed above would be sheer folly.

andymays

07-15-2009, 12:49 PM

I forgot to add that in addition to the restrictions I mentioned above (because you could start a for profit arm if you really wanted to, much like the Jockey Club has with entities like Equibase) I think it would be a big mistake for HANA to get into the ADW business, especially at this point in its existence. Now maybe 5 to 10 years down the road when its a sizable mature company and looking to expand its revenue flows and has the stability and also individuals with the necessary experience to give such an endeavor a reasonable chance of success and most importantly, had accrued a substantial capital base in which to operate (and make no bones about it, you need serious capital to run an ADW and be able to pay people instantaneously upon hitting a big score), not to mention the legislative clout to get through the red tape of some racing jurisdictions, then maybe it would be something to look into. Any move to do such prior to what I listed above would be sheer folly.

I'll take your word for it. You would know better than me!

machine

07-15-2009, 12:51 PM

If a racetrack is rewarded more for taking bets than for putting on said races any smart business man would focus on taking bets over putting on races. It's parallel to the racinos who now want to give less money to the purses from the slots (because the slots make money the races don't). Because of this upside down business venture the State gets involved to make sure tracks don't do just that (screw the horseman, race 5 days a year and pocket the money). So the argument leads to MORE state involvement to make sure things are "fair" which they obviously are not.

If you wish to argue those in charge of racetracks are idiots and wouldn't know what to do with a bottle opener if you gave them a bottle I'm with you. And again leads to the point HANA needs a platform of what a track should do w/ it's takeout (clean up the back stretch, pay for vets, insurance for jockeys etc etc), but doesn't mean that you should hop in bed with the person giving you kickbacks.

Arguing for those taking the bets getting more money at the expense of those putting on the race is foolish and probably hinders getting a seat at the table. From the outside it appears you don't have a need for tracks. They are the bad guys and they should be happy with what they get. Yeah, you'd have a hard time getting in anywhere w/ that attitude. In my opinion a platform outlining what HANA believes would be the most fair system should be written down somewhere. First, so we know that those on the board are truly "representing" us, and 2nd so we know what we're signing up for.

You have a choice in a platform, admit the system sucks and here's some things that will make it bearable for horseplayers OR admit the system sucks and put together what a good system looks like for everyone benefit.

miesque

07-15-2009, 12:53 PM

I'll take your word for it. You would know better than me!

If it makes you feel any better, a HANA Board member did bring up your idea at one of our weekly Board meetings before being shot down so you are in good company. ;)

DeanT

07-15-2009, 01:14 PM

If a racetrack is rewarded more for taking bets than for putting on said races any smart business man would focus on taking bets over putting on races. It's parallel to the racinos who now want to give less money to the purses from the slots (because the slots make money the races don't). Because of this upside down business venture the State gets involved to make sure tracks don't do just that (screw the horseman, race 5 days a year and pocket the money). So the argument leads to MORE state involvement to make sure things are "fair" which they obviously are not.

If you wish to argue those in charge of racetracks are idiots and wouldn't know what to do with a bottle opener if you gave them a bottle I'm with you. And again leads to the point HANA needs a platform of what a track should do w/ it's takeout (clean up the back stretch, pay for vets, insurance for jockeys etc etc), but doesn't mean that you should hop in bed with the person giving you kickbacks.

Arguing for those taking the bets getting more money at the expense of those putting on the race is foolish and probably hinders getting a seat at the table. From the outside it appears you don't have a need for tracks. They are the bad guys and they should be happy with what they get. Yeah, you'd have a hard time getting in anywhere w/ that attitude. In my opinion a platform outlining what HANA believes would be the most fair system should be written down somewhere. First, so we know that those on the board are truly "representing" us, and 2nd so we know what we're signing up for.

You have a choice in a platform, admit the system sucks and here's some things that will make it bearable for horseplayers OR admit the system sucks and put together what a good system looks like for everyone benefit.

What you are saying in theory is not happening in reality.

What, in effect (a host track controlling pricing through a larger share of the pie) has been done in two instances, Twinspires and HPI.

Twinspires, what have they done and what has this resulted in?

* Horsemen went on strike against them because of their share of wagering.

* Players get no rebates

* Effective takeout went up not down

* Tracknet has made it known that you have to bet over $1M a year for anyone to get a rebate for their signals

* A player, R Zanakis noticed that a pick 6 he hit at the Meadowlands paid less in Twinspires. It turns out that there was a deal in Oregon where the takeout on this bet could be 25% instead of 20% on track. This was exposed and TS now charges 20% not 25% on that bet.

How about HPI and their system?

* the Ellis Park 4% takeout pick 4 was offered on HPI. At a takeout of 25%.

* Players have left for offshores

* rebates were quietly instituted for players well over $1M bet per year, not less than that.

* the 10% takeout experiment in Laurel was not offered.

* The 19% takes for Churchill Downs and Keeneland for example, are charged at 27% for players.

Once again, if you are advocating the host track getting all this money, like TS and HPI, you will get skewered by players, and rightfully so. It is a non-starter and I can tell you from the 900 comments we have on sign up forms, I have never seen one which wants Tracknet and Bob Evans to have more control over racing. We do not want higher takeouts, and rebates only for large players, and HANA members agree 100% with that.

Last, and I will try once again, Chickenhead worked on this issue from the start of HANA and did due diligence and came up with this:

If you would like to discuss that, please do, either via email or on the blog. But asking for us to come up with a plan which you agree with, that our members do not agree with, simply is not something we would do. We want to stop the items listed above from happening, not promote them.

Cangamble

07-15-2009, 01:22 PM

Machine, we are horseplayers, we represent horseplayers. ADWs are the least of our concern right now because they are the only thing horseplayers have going for them if the purpose of playing horses is to try to actually make money, or at least have a reasonable chance to make money betting horses.

If it wasn't for rebaters handle would be something like two thirds what it is today. And the game would be dying faster than it is right now.

Indulto

07-15-2009, 02:40 PM

…And someone else asked me about sport vs game. I'm a big believer that most people if involved as a sport first move to wanting to wager on it. Is the Super Bowl popular because people wager on it, or do people wager on it because it's so popular? So, I don't believe takeout should depend on either, there is a level that is optimal for everyone. Furthermore, If I bet blackjack at a casino, the casino doesn't give me dollar bills to bet more blackjack it gives me a free room and a meal so i will continue to bet blackjack. Asking the ADW's to give money back is only possible because they have such a sweet deal going in that they get the lion's share of revenue for a product they don't create (Though you all hate Pope, there is no other business that follows that model, not even Itunes [.10 to band, .65 to recording industry, .35 to itunes). They take advantage of a broken system and pass on that advantage to the player so that you're on their side. If more money went back to the place putting on the show (and nothing is guaranteed) maybe you'd get a better show and a lower take out. Just because the ADW's offer rebates doesn't mean that they aren't screwing you.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=581741#post581741 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=581741#post581741)

machine,
Are you still the blogger, “Handride,” who made the post in the above link or someone else using his login? Quite a change in demeanor from previous posts under that pseudonym.;)

It was on the assumption you were the horseplayer who had worked on the NTRA marketing report that I brought up the “sport vs. market” issue. My question now is, are you really trying to help HANA with your contract suggestion or to expand the influence of the NTRA horseplayer group who may already have access to such documents?

machine

07-15-2009, 02:56 PM

Yeah that's me I write a blog and I have a mind and I learn and continue to learn. And my opinion changes, hopefully I don't have to go back to every bulletin board I've been a part of for the past 11 years and go back and put footnotes.

There is no conspiracy as to my push for a platform. I know a couple people, but not through NTRA horseplayers group.

My push for a platform, no matter what's in it, is for the reasons i've laid out in this thread. My guess is that the platform HANA would put out I wouldn't agree too, but at least you'd have a platform.

you'd know how you're being represented.
you'd know what you're being represented for.

DeanT

07-15-2009, 03:05 PM

As I have told you before I think you are one of the most passionate people in this sport. If there was a million of you racing would not be where it is. You have a different mission statement and that is absolutely fine.

Just as I mentioned before and it is not a criticism of your views, it is simply a statement with HANA - we are horseplayers and horseplayers sign up for us.

One of your most ballsy posts on your view, which we all remember as it spurred a lot of comments and blog posts around the TBA:

"I love to hear how the industry should focus on the gambling. At this point it's comical how wrong headed it is."

A noble discussion, gutsy, ballsy and all the rest. But for HANA, it is not something we'd have much discussion on. The people who sign up for HANA are horseplayers who gamble on horses so they dont much go for that view.

It is a similar issue with the stance of getting the host track to get the bulk of wagering - noble idea etc. But HANA members have signed up because they are tired of being treated so poorly by racetracks. Giving them more money is not something they consider an option as they simply do not trust racetracks, and I cant say I blame them.

I think you have some fantastic fan ideas and I hope you keep pushing them forward, however, because this is a fine game to watch and be a part of, whether we bet on it or not, and I think the business has not done a good enough job with that either.

machine

07-15-2009, 03:06 PM

And after rereading that post I still agree. The report for the NTRA was put on infront of marketers who have no input into the overall takeout/signal/contract matters. For that you have to go up a level to the deal makers. Why I would like to see a group put together a platform is because after dealing w/ the BC, NTRA, and TPA for the past year I realize you can get in the door and give lip service, but it's not until you hit them over the head w/ a full functioning working idea do they actually look at you seriously.

chickenhead

07-15-2009, 03:13 PM

just thought I'd mention, not by way of support, that Amazon takes 70% of book revenue for the Kindle.

Apple uses music sales primarily to support Ipod/Iphone sales, where they have huge margins. Amazon uses the Kindle to push it's book content, where it has very large margins.

I guess the point is, pointing to any one single other kind of distributor agreement and saying the numbers are correct doesn't work all that well. The numbers need to be what they need to be for horseracing, not for some other thing.

Horsemen control the signals - and you're not going to get any of them to sign up for 10% of takeout. A necessary requirement, probably the primary requirement, is that the model has a non-zero chance of getting implemented.

The argument to gut the ADW industry as a source of revenue for tracks only makes sense if you believe that the services the ADW provides -- video, data, and rebates, aren't needed. If they are needed, you are merely shifting who is going to provide them. Since the ADW already provides them -- why? In light of the decades of evidence, and copious and continuous statements highlighting that track operators understand their customers much less than ADW operators -- why would that be a positive for racing?

If the tracks believe they can operate as a bet taker more efficiently -- by all means, become a bet taker as well. Just don't attempt to monopolize your signal, and cripple every other bet taker. That is bad for the entire industry.

machine

07-15-2009, 03:16 PM

This is great, please continue to read my blog and make ad hominem attacks when the crux of this entire thread is NOT me, a person who has admitted 2 times now that they probably wouldn't be in HANA if there was a platform. The point of this post is that while I may feel one way (making the #1 goal of marketing and advertising gamblers is foolish, never said it couldn't be #2-#10) I realize that what you are doing could have an impact in this game if only you took yourselves a little more seriously. People who are in places that affect change are looking for ideas, but mostly fans have met them with lip service, or reaffirming ideas they already wanted to do or worse the people looking for change are hearing what they want to hear. When what truly spurs change is people with specific goals and rationale putting it in the face of those who can affect that change.

Without a platform you can't measure success.
Without a platform you can't take credit for helping create change.
Without a platform your membership will not know where to begin.

I admit I wouldn't be a good member of HANA, but I realize opportunity and hope when I see it. So, continue w/ your irons in the fire and being too busy to specifically address what appears to be much of your membership wanting clear goals and missions.

All this does is reaffirm why I don't go on Bulletin boards that much, the messenger is readily attacked and the message is lost.

Charli125

07-15-2009, 03:21 PM

This is great, please continue to read my blog and make ad hominem attacks when the crux of this entire thread is NOT me, a person who has admitted 2 times now that they probably wouldn't be in HANA if there was a platform.

I don't see anyone attacking you. Disagreeing, absolutely, but not attacking. other than the HANA bashing, I actually find this thread to be very interesting.

chickenhead

07-15-2009, 03:26 PM

I actually agree very much with your core point of having a model to point to, obviously.

machine

07-15-2009, 03:29 PM

should have said ad hominem arguments

DeanT

07-15-2009, 03:30 PM

All this does is reaffirm why I don't go on Bulletin boards that much, the messenger is readily attacked and the message is lost.

I was speaking to your point of view that the host tracks should get the bulk of the handles and was offering my input that this is not a good thing for HANA to be involved with because members would not agree with it, and it is not good for racing handles. I see Chick's last post was along those lines as well. They were about your ideas, not your personality.

For your original point, I spoke about that in the first couple posts where I agreed. We are working doing due diligence to come up with several plans right now to place in front of the industry with achievable goals. It takes quite a bit of time to do correctly. They take time, and with a membership who sometimes wants to see things done yesterday, it is a tough balancing act to come up with change ideas to grow membership, and making sure we find the best way to get that change done so we can show progress and move forward as an organization.

I thanked you for your comments before, and I thank you again for them.

chickenhead

07-15-2009, 03:59 PM

I think people putting forward what they think a model should look like is a good thing, and of course horseplayers are going to disagree about what it should look like. This thread seems like a good place to talk about this stuff. I'd love to hear ITP talk about what he thinks a model would look like. I'd love to hear Ian Meyers talk about what a model should look like. I'd love to hear what Ron Ellis thinks a model should look like.

I know we have plenty of horsemen, track folks, and ADW folks that read this board, I'd like to hear them talk about what a model should look like.

Cangamble

07-15-2009, 04:11 PM

I think people putting forward what they think a model should look like is a good thing, and of course horseplayers are going to disagree about what it should look like. This thread seems like a good place to talk about this stuff. I'd love to hear ITP talk about what he thinks a model would look like. I'd love to hear Ian Meyers talk about what a model should look like. I'd love to hear what Ron Ellis thinks a model should look like.

I know we have plenty of horsemen, track folks, and ADW folks that read this board, I'd like to hear them talk about what a model should look like.
I think a model should like Carla Bruni
http://www.bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/carla-bruni-sarkozy-is-french-first-lady.jpg

I figure we needed some levity.

InsideThePylons-MW

07-15-2009, 05:14 PM

Impossible!

Satish Sanan and others are carrying Pope around on their shoulders and calling him a hero in the Paulick thread.

This is just amazing.

We are doomed!

Indulto

07-15-2009, 06:51 PM

Impossible!

Satish Sanan and others are carrying Pope around on their shoulders and calling him a hero in the Paulick thread.

This is just amazing.

We are doomed!I thought you and SS would have lots in common as horseowners, Big Bettors, etc., so what do you mean "We,' Kemo Sabe? :jump: BTW are you going to put up 10K to enter the BC contest?

DeanT

07-15-2009, 06:54 PM

Impossible!

Satish Sanan and others are carrying Pope around on their shoulders and calling him a hero in the Paulick thread.

This is just amazing.

We are doomed!

That's tough to read. Nice try on the response. But ....... zooooommmm.

Cangamble

07-15-2009, 06:55 PM

Impossible!

Satish Sanan and others are carrying Pope around on their shoulders and calling him a hero in the Paulick thread.

This is just amazing.

We are doomed!
You did good, but I tried to top you.

DeanT

07-15-2009, 07:02 PM

Only in racing does an idea which proposes giving more money back to the people who created the problem make sense. In any other business they would not even have a forum. It's like the former CEO of AIG saying "hey, give me another $20b and let me have another crack at it", and people actually saying "sure".

Cangamble

07-15-2009, 07:16 PM

Only in racing does an idea which proposes giving more money back to the people who created the problem make sense. In any other business they would not even have a forum. It's like the former CEO of AIG saying "hey, give me another $20b and let me have another crack at it", and people actually saying "sure".
I'll tell you another thing that irks me big time, when you see an owner win a big stake race at a price and they say "they never bet."

I believe them, but when they say it, it makes me feel like a sucker.

InsideThePylons-MW

07-15-2009, 07:55 PM

I thought you and SS would have lots in common as horseowners, Big Bettors, etc., so what do you mean "We,' Kemo Sabe? :jump: BTW are you going to put up 10K to enter the BC contest?

We have nothing in common......word on the street is that he doesn't like to pay.

Even though I never play in contests, the BC one is a possibilty because they let you enter twice and there is a chance I am going.

InsideThePylons-MW

07-15-2009, 08:29 PM

Only in racing does an idea which proposes giving more money back to the people who created the problem make sense. In any other business they would not even have a forum. It's like the former CEO of AIG saying "hey, give me another $20b and let me have another crack at it", and people actually saying "sure".

Horse racing is hilarious.

Make a bunch of money in another business.....invest $100 million in racing....lose $60 million.....the people in charge of racing proclaim you a genius and put you in a position of power

Indulto

07-16-2009, 12:55 AM

… To those who think HANA should be a bunch of militants running around blowing up race tracks... I'll not apologize for aking a different approach to things. I'm not about to apologize for quietly growing membership and working behind the scenes to: gain a true understanding of problems that plague the industry and effect change from there.

If you want to blow up race tracks go start your own organization. ...That was the second reference by a HANA board member to “blowing up racetracks.” The first time was humorous in its context. This latest one seems more reflective of a siege mentality. Threads like this one will keep occurring until members are regularly kept abreast of what’s going on.Want a HANA Flag to rally around?

Here's what HANA stands for:

1. Signal Availability

2. Takeout Reduction

3. Drugs

4. Pool Integrity

If there were a HANA flag, THESE would be the rallying points. …Just out of curiosity, if lower takeout isn’t the primary goal, what will the availability of more signals at high takeout do for us?

You need to know whether your stated priorities are sanctioned by the membership. How can HANA members have a collective voice in the industry if they don’t have a voice in their own organization?… I want change in the above four areas. Staging protests and boycotts and getting in shouting matches with industry leaders isn't going to effect change.

… Sitting down at the table with them and making them aware of customer needs and wants - and shining a spotlight on areas where those needs and wants are ignored the most IS getting us some traction. We've been at it just under a year and in that time I HAVE seen an attitude shift starting to take place within the industry. Whereas I saw absolutely none before we got started. Maybe that change is subtle. And maybe it's based on the fact that they at least know that we will shine a spotlight on them (which they hate btw)...

… But yes, I'm completely serious when I say I hope it never has to come to that. I'm completely serious when I say it's in the industry's best interest to effect change on their own and do it right now.

Because without sweeping change a whole lot of tracks currently on the bubble are going to close in the next few years. And that won't be because of HANA. It'll happen because those in charge of racing lack the vision to make the very changes that are so desperately needed - and because they deliberately chose to ignore the recommendations of all the panels and outside consultants that they hired - and because they chose to ignore something that no business should ever ignore: the importance of the customer and customer needs and wants. ...On one hand you say “staging protests … isn’t going to effect change,” while on the other you say that tracks hate having the spotlight shined on them.

No-one here would argue that “it's in the industry's best interest to effect change on their own and do it right now,” but a re-reading of Sanan’s and Pope’s remarks at the Paulick Report should reinforce the reality of the subsequent bolded phrases in the above quote which in turn suggest that all HANA's eggs shouldn't be in the non-confrontational basket.

But at least HANA continues to make people aware of issues and gather them into its fold. However, when an alleged membership exceeding 1200 can’t get involved even when willing, it suggests a static leadership; incapable of expanding and delegating. What’s the point of belonging to an organization that doesn’t let its membership know what it’s planning and doing until no further input is possible or necessary, and no mechanism exists to obtain collective feedback to determine the level of support for those actions? The current approach -- inviting people to join only to watch silently, while a small group of part-time volunteers attempts to filter most non-PA input through themselves first -- limits what can be accomplished.

IMO you need to expand the board/team. I further suggest you find tasks you could delegate even to anonymous members. Because I’ve been on your case about communicating with the membership, I would be willing to spend the time necessary to create feedback polls from some subset of your weekly minutes that you might be willing to send me. You would then receive a copy of the poll introduction post and option text for your approval/editing prior to actual submission. However, if others are willing to volunteer for this task with whom you would be more comfortable working, I would not be insulted, but quite satisfied at having contributed a useful idea.

Most polls would be informative; simply describing individual issues and utilizing a response set similar to the following:
1) Agree, Disagree, No Opinion
2) Support, Oppose, No Opinion
3) Have great Interest in, Have little interest in, Have no interest in
4) Approve, Disapprove
5) Etc.

If the pseudonyms of poll responders are not hidden, it would enable like-minded members to contact each other to collectively prepare and refine ideas prior to presentation to leadership, and avoid bogging them down in the process.

kenwoodallpromos

07-16-2009, 03:06 AM

Horse racing is hilarious.

Make a bunch of money in another business.....invest $100 million in racing....lose $60 million.....the people in charge of racing proclaim you a genius and put you in a position of power
To carry the idea out further- Doesn't matter how you make your money- as long as you spend it in racing! Yep, too bad racing interest is nowhere near the other pro sports.

miesque

07-16-2009, 09:38 AM

That was the second reference by a HANA board member to “blowing up racetracks.” The first time was humorous in its context. This latest one seems more reflective of a siege mentality. Threads like this one will keep occurring until members are regularly kept abreast of what’s going on.[color=black]Just out of curiosity, if lower takeout isn’t the primary goal, what will the availability of more signals at high takeout do for us?

You need to know whether your stated priorities are sanctioned by the membership. How can HANA members have a collective voice in the industry if they don’t have a voice in their own organization?On one hand you say “staging protests … isn’t going to effect change,” while on the other you say that tracks hate having the spotlight shined on them.

No-one here would argue that “it's in the industry's best interest to effect change on their own and do it right now,” but a re-reading of Sanan’s and Pope’s remarks at the Paulick Report should reinforce the reality of the subsequent bolded phrases in the above quote which in turn suggest that all HANA's eggs shouldn't be in the non-confrontational basket.

But at least HANA continues to make people aware of issues and gather them into its fold. However, when an alleged membership exceeding 1200 can’t get involved even when willing, it suggests a static leadership; incapable of expanding and delegating. What’s the point of belonging to an organization that doesn’t let its membership know what it’s planning and doing until no further input is possible or necessary, and no mechanism exists to obtain collective feedback to determine the level of support for those actions? The current approach -- inviting people to join only to watch silently, while a small group of part-time volunteers attempts to filter most non-PA input through themselves first -- limits what can be accomplished.

IMO you need to expand the board/team. I further suggest you find tasks you could delegate even to anonymous members. Because I’ve been on your case about communicating with the membership, I would be willing to spend the time necessary to create feedback polls from some subset of your weekly minutes that you might be willing to send me. You would then receive a copy of the poll introduction post and option text for your approval/editing prior to actual submission. However, if others are willing to volunteer for this task with whom you would be more comfortable working, I would not be insulted, but quite satisfied at having contributed a useful idea.

Most polls would be informative; simply describing individual issues and utilizing a response set similar to the following:
1) Agree, Disagree, No Opinion
2) Support, Oppose, No Opinion
3) Have great Interest in, Have little interest in, Have no interest in
4) Approve, Disapprove
5) Etc.

If the pseudonyms of poll responders are not hidden, it would enable like-minded members to contact each other to collectively prepare and refine ideas prior to presentation to leadership, and avoid bogging them down in the process.

Actually we do have plans in the works to do a comprehensive survey of members, right now its in its formative stages and frankly the less time that Board members spend on the internet getting involved in circular, long winded arguments, the greater chance it and other items will get moved along at a faster rate, so I will keep this brief and don't be offended if I do not respond because I don't have time today.

Also, Indulto, I have to thank you for making me chuckle (which is no mean feat after having inadvertently spilled an entire full venti sized cup of Starbucks all over my desk just a few minutes ago after getting to the office this morning after being out of town the past week). After the HANA Board has been subjected to much criticism about how it is running the organization, you are suggesting we delegate tasks to anonymous individuals and rely on them to not only get something done but also to in effect represent the organization by their actions? Now that is some tightly, well run entity you are proposing. :lol:

Indulto

07-16-2009, 02:02 PM

Actually we do have plans in the works to do a comprehensive survey of members, right now its in its formative stages and frankly the less time that Board members spend on the internet getting involved in circular, long winded arguments, the greater chance it and other items will get moved along at a faster rate, so I will keep this brief and don't be offended if I do not respond because I don't have time today.

Also, Indulto, I have to thank you for making me chuckle (which is no mean feat after having inadvertently spilled an entire full venti sized cup of Starbucks all over my desk just a few minutes ago after getting to the office this morning after being out of town the past week). After the HANA Board has been subjected to much criticism about how it is running the organization, you are suggesting we delegate tasks to anonymous individuals and rely on them to not only get something done but also to in effect represent the organization by their actions? Now that is some tightly, well run entity you are proposing. :lol:miesque,
You always did come across as a Starbucks consumer. Why pay $1 for a cup of coffee when $5 will do? :lol:

Your inability to find any value in my offer was expected, but I felt compelled to answer Dean's call for people to actually put time in to implement the ideas they champion. Far from wanting to represent HANA, I was specifying a clerical task that needed to be performed for the benefit of the entire membership. I hope someone else steps forward to fill the void you might otherwise be creating with the inflexible leadership style to which I referred. :bang:

Indulto

07-18-2009, 08:14 PM

... After the HANA Board has been subjected to much criticism about how it is running the organization, you are suggesting we delegate tasks to anonymous individuals and rely on them to not only get something done but also to in effect represent the organization by their actions? ...It occurred to me that it may NOT have occurred to you that whomever such tasks are eventually delegated to, the supervising team member will have to create (with PA’s permission) shared accounts; with pseudonyms like “HANA Feedback,” for example. That would address your “representation” problem, and even make transparent which and how many members were involved.

Is this even a security issue or one of insecurity? I'm curious as to how rigorously you're planning to vet each prospective non-anonymous volunteer to ensure their “reliability” Will a resume and personal references be required?

Grass Roots, eh?

Regarding their ability "to get something done," will the "I have a job and I'm not getting paid" mantra suffice at lower levels?

As to criticism, what is it you think you're subjecting industry leadership to? (When you're not exchanging bouquets, that is. ;)) I guess you can dish it out, but maybe you can't take it.

cj

07-18-2009, 11:13 PM

You are still whining about this? What organization do you know of that allows an anonymous member to perform an active role?

Indulto

07-19-2009, 03:03 AM

You are still whining about this? What organization do you know of that allows an anonymous member to perform an active role?Hey cj, remember the joke about the prisoners who don’t retell jokes, but call out numbers instead? Let’s start counting your tedious standard retort renewals. I estimate this one to be #21, which would make the previous one #20:It is easy to be critical when you are a nameless person on a keyboard. I respect your opinions, but not nearly as much as somebody with nothing to hide laying out what they think.… I respect your accomplishments, but not your repeatedly gratuitous deployment of the anonymous keyboarder defense when you can't come up with anything else to counter my remarks. …BTW whatever resulted from the HANA website work you volunteered for last July?

cj

07-19-2009, 08:56 AM

As for the web site, I help when asked.

I wasn't making a joke, but asking a serious question. I can't think of any organization that would allow an anonymous member to perform an active role.

exactaplayer

07-19-2009, 12:06 PM

As for the web site, I help when asked.

I wasn't making a joke, but asking a serious question. I can't think of any organization that would allow an anonymous member to perform an active role.
Ever here of the U.S. Government ?

Grits

07-19-2009, 12:41 PM

Ever here of the U.S. Government ?

Probably so, given he had a 23 year military career.

alydar

07-19-2009, 04:40 PM

I have read this thread with great interest. By the time I got through it, I have to say, it left me feeling dissatisfied with a lot of things. It seems that HANA is getting bogged down in a lot of BS. This thread is a good example. While I think that HANA has done a good job of spreading the word, that is about all I can see so far. Too often I see self congratulatory notices about meetings, interviews etc. The board seems a bit to be too caught up with themselves to me.

As the group grows are the members going to have a say about the leadership? Specifically, I mean selecting the board members and deciding what the priorities should be. I have been supportive of the group. I joined early on, bought a pin, belong to the yahoo group, and have offered to help. But as I said in an earlier post, my offer of help has been ignored.

I have grown less sure what the purpose of the group really is. It seems that there has been a lot of talk, but little else. I have recently decided that the only real change that will come to the industry will not come from player groups, but simple economics. The innovative and strong will survive and the rest will not. This may take time, but will eventually happen. In the next five years we should see these type of changes take hold.

DeanT

07-19-2009, 05:07 PM

Aly,

I contacted you regarding your offer to help with ADW ratings. You and four others are on the list who have offered. We have not started that yet, but plan to get going and set up a meeting. I hope you still want to be a part of it. If you or Cbedo want to champion it and take the ball and run with it, please let us know and we can set up an email group. Bill usually runs the ratings things, but is at Vegas for a betting thing, then Yavapai for the HANA meetings there, so I dont think he would have time to get going on it until mid August at the very least.

D

DeanT

07-19-2009, 05:18 PM

PS: Thank you CJ. Your help over the last nine or ten months is truly appreciated. We sometimes forget to say it as much as we should to people like you and Mike and others who have gone beyond what is expected for a fledgling horseplayer group.

Indulto

07-19-2009, 07:03 PM

As for the web site, I help when asked.Do I detect an evasive whine here?I wasn't making a joke, but asking a serious question. I can't think of any organization that would allow an anonymous member to perform an active role.My question regarding the website was serious. The only mention of the website (as opposed to the blog site) that I could locate prior to Jeff P's anouncement in the following thread from the middle of October last year:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51483&page=2&pp=15 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51483&page=2&pp=15)
What is HANA doing??

So I’m curious as to what you actually accomplished in your active role as a non-anonymous volunteer besides carrying your anti-anonymity agenda from PA over to HANA.

I’m surprised that someone with as much on-line involvement as you is so dismissive of anonymous participation, when blogs and forums like this one depend on it. I understand that personality conflicts preclude my contributing to HANA in any role other than as a voice of “loyal opposition,” but it seems unproductive to inhibit others who would like to be part of a “horseplayer” advocacy in cyberspace -- whether it be for industry reform, social interaction, whatever – but don’t wish to involve their personal lives until the benefit in doing so outweighs the perceived negative aspects for them, individually.

Is the HANA “team” an “organization” or is it a club? Is it comprised predominantly of “elitists” whose income is somehow derived in some degree from their involvement in racing-related activities? I have sadly learned that everyone has his own interpretation of the terms “horseplayer,” “customer,” “bettor,” “fan,” etc. The majority of people falling under the most general definition of those headings are those who bet for entertainment and have no direct industry involvement.

I am not the only individual who perceives that majority to be under-represented within HANA leadership as well as by their most recently stated objectives and priorities. As long as HANA leadership maintains that it represents the interests of that majority, I will continue to hold them accountable.

cj

07-19-2009, 07:31 PM

...

So I’m curious as to what you actually accomplished in your active role as a non-anonymous volunteer besides carrying your anti-anonymity agenda from PA over to HANA.

I've done whatever has been asked, simple as that.

As far as any anti-anonymity agenda at PA, that isn't true. I've just stated many times it is very easy to sit back and nitpick, attack, drill, etc. those that are not anonymous while not revealing who you are.

boomman

07-19-2009, 08:07 PM

I've done whatever has been asked, simple as that.

As far as any anti-anonymity agenda at PA, that isn't true. I've just stated many times it is very easy to sit back and nitpick, attack, drill, etc. those that are not anonymous while not revealing who you are.

Agreed CJ! Even though I do respect the rights of posters to post anonymously, it has always been a little bit disconcerting to have a dialogue with someone that knows who you are and that your name is out there while having no idea who the discussion is taking place with. This discussion even took place in the war room when thre ideas for a players group was being kicked around as Just Ralph (who was the moderator) would remember.............

Boomer

Indulto

07-19-2009, 09:29 PM

I've done whatever has been asked, simple as that.

As far as any anti-anonymity agenda at PA, that isn't true. I've just stated many times it is very easy to sit back and nitpick, attack, drill, etc. those that are not anonymous while not revealing who you are.So it’s OK to “sit back and nitpick, attack, drill, etc.” if one is not anonymous?

There are no restrictions against anonymous posting here. Why is that? No one is forced to bring their personal identities here. Some would argue that most who do so expect to benefit in some way from the visibility it provides them. They can hardly claim the higher moral ground by doing so.

The fact is, you don’t like what I have to say and when you can’t debate my points effectively, you say it’s not fair because you don’t know my first and last name; assuming no deception by everyone else who appears to have done so. What you particularly don’t like is when someone with very high visibility like yourself is challenged and proven to be merely mortal … or something less.

I suspect you want readers to apply more weight to your opinion than mine because you’re cj, the profitable handicapper who generates his own performance data used by others. That’s fine for handicapping discussions. What actually impressed me was your skill, determination, and success in automating your figure-generation and handicapping processes, but then machines are much easier to manipulate than people. Your expertise in certain areas doesn’t necessarily carry over to all others.

IMO credibility in cyberspace is created by reliably communicating accurately and sincerely on a consistent basis, and by acknowledging mistakes when they occur. An acquaintance of mine feels that should also include errors in speculation, but veracity can’t always be verified on-line, and you seldom get an answer without asking a question.

So stop trying to discredit my arguments with what you don’t know about me. I’m fair game for anything I’ve posted and so are you.

cj

07-19-2009, 11:05 PM

I dont' think I've ever said people shouldn't remain anonymous. It is an individual choice. I've certainly had some gains by choosing not to do so.

So it’s OK to “sit back and nitpick, attack, drill, etc.” if one is not anonymous?

Sure, and it is ok to do so as you do as well. What I have said is that sometimes your questions go further than that into a more personal nature, and I don't feel I want, or need, to answer some of them.

I'm not sure why you think I don't like what you have to say. Like every other poster here, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I'm sure most others see me the same way...sometimes they agree, sometimes not. We've been on the same side of many debates. For example, the selective rebates issue. It isn't anything personal when I don't agree. I hope that goes both ways, but your last post makes me think not.

Imriledup

07-19-2009, 11:33 PM

[QUOTE=chickenhead]might as well roll out my old horse for another go round. A starting point for discussions I guess:

A while back I did some thinking about what a universal model could look like, and that I thought made sense from a revenue sharing point of view, but also made explicit the sort of investments that needed to be made for this business to exist.

I do think the industry can afford to pay more than 3% on a 20% signal to the host track and horsemen. Part of that is the elimination of the subsidies in the form of source market fees. So in the following, we are assuming all fees paid for the signal are going where they belong, to the host track (making that actually happen, good luck). And of course, the total fees already paid are well above 3%, so that is a moot issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what you are saying is that we should take money from horseplayers and give it to owners?

chickenhead

07-20-2009, 12:29 AM

So, what you are saying is that we should take money from horseplayers and give it to owners?

That is not even remotely close to anything I said. The part you quoted I'm talking quite clearly about eliminating source market fees. Which means that the portion of the takeout that goes to tracks and horsemen should only go to those tracks and horsemen who are involved with the race you are betting on.

Indulto

07-20-2009, 05:24 AM

I dont' think I've ever said people shouldn't remain anonymous. It is an individual choice. I've certainly had some gains by choosing not to do so.
So it’s OK to “sit back and nitpick, attack, drill, etc.” if one is not anonymous?Sure, and it is ok to do so as you do as well. What I have said is that sometimes your questions go further than that into a more personal nature, and I don't feel I want, or need, to answer some of them.

I'm not sure why you think I don't like what you have to say. Like every other poster here, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I'm sure most others see me the same way...sometimes they agree, sometimes not. We've been on the same side of many debates. For example, the selective rebates issue. It isn't anything personal when I don't agree. I hope that goes both ways, but your last post makes me think not.cj,
It would be great if we were in agreement on the issue of selective rebating, but I’m not sure that we are. Even if rebates were available to everybody, I still wouldn’t be satisfied unless the rate rebated were the same for all just like direct takeout. Do you agree with that position? Do you think HANA currently supports that position? If not, do you think HANA should be supporting that position, unequivocally?

I don’t take your disagreement personally. I actually enjoy sparring with you over the anonymity issue here at PA, but not with regard to HANA where too many (yourself included) are clueless – perhaps due to individual life experiences -- about the myriad of reasons people legitimately choose to not to provide personal information for no immediate benefit.

What I do take personally with regard to the HANA leadership who I respect on an individual basis, but not yet collectively, is their delay at best, or apparent reluctance at worst, to
1) Survey the membership to determine its makeup; recognizing that different categories have different interests. 1200+ members should provide a statistically significant cross-section of horseplayers from which to draw accurate conclusions.
2) Ascertain the will of the membership in a manner observable and verifiable by all, and then take detailed positions consistent with actual support for those positions following public discussion pre and post-voting.

One can only wonder how many projects the leadership is continuing to advance on without checking to make sure it is on course. I don’t know whether the majority of HANA members will agree with my position, but I do know that opinions I’m exposed to off-board from other non-professional bettors, don’t jell with what HANA is saying here and on its blog.

Too many industry-related decisions affecting horseplayers are taking place behind closed doors at the Jockey Club and elsewhere. It shouldn't be occurring at HANA if it truly wants to be the horseplayer's voice.

jonnielu

07-20-2009, 08:05 AM

cj,

One can only wonder how many projects the leadership is continuing to advance on without checking to make sure it is on course. I don’t know whether the majority of HANA members will agree with my position, but I do know that opinions I’m exposed to off-board from other non-professional bettors, don’t jell with what HANA is saying here and on its blog.

Too many industry-related decisions affecting horseplayers are taking place behind closed doors at the Jockey Club and elsewhere. It shouldn't be occurring at HANA if it truly wants to be the horseplayer's voice.

Keen observations.

jdl

cj

07-20-2009, 10:44 AM

cj,
It would be great if we were in agreement on the issue of selective rebating, but I’m not sure that we are. Even if rebates were available to everybody, I still wouldn’t be satisfied unless the rate rebated were the same for all just like direct takeout. Do you agree with that position? Do you think HANA currently supports that position? If not, do you think HANA should be supporting that position, unequivocally?

Yes, I've said that each time you've asked. I'm perplexed as what gives you some other opinion. As for HANA, I support whatever they try to do. While I am 100% for that as an end, I'm also 100% sure that is never going to be the first step. You have to fight battles you have a chance to win.

I don’t take your disagreement personally. I actually enjoy sparring with you over the anonymity issue here at PA, but not with regard to HANA where too many (yourself included) are clueless – perhaps due to individual life experiences -- about the myriad of reasons people legitimately choose to not to provide personal information for no immediate benefit.

What I do take personally with regard to the HANA leadership who I respect on an individual basis, but not yet collectively, is their delay at best, or apparent reluctance at worst, to
1) Survey the membership to determine its makeup; recognizing that different categories have different interests. 1200+ members should provide a statistically significant cross-section of horseplayers from which to draw accurate conclusions.
2) Ascertain the will of the membership in a manner observable and verifiable by all, and then take detailed positions consistent with actual support for those positions following public discussion pre and post-voting.

One can only wonder how many projects the leadership is continuing to advance on without checking to make sure it is on course. I don’t know whether the majority of HANA members will agree with my position, but I do know that opinions I’m exposed to off-board from other non-professional bettors, don’t jell with what HANA is saying here and on its blog.

Too many industry-related decisions affecting horseplayers are taking place behind closed doors at the Jockey Club and elsewhere. It shouldn't be occurring at HANA if it truly wants to be the horseplayer's voice.

I can't really speak for HANA since I haven't been very involved. I just don't have the time. I do have a hard time knocking anything they do when they do it for free and with good intentions. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see, but I trust them.

Indulto

07-20-2009, 03:02 PM

Yes, I've said that each time you've asked. I'm perplexed as what gives you some other opinion.Having asked this of so many, it is hard to remember having asked you, in particular. I pursue this nuance, because I've been accused of misinterpreting other generalities. Fool me once ...As for HANA, I support whatever they try to do.Are you ever a part of the decision making process?While I am 100% for that as an end, I'm also 100% sure that is never going to be the first step.Wouldn't you like to know what percentage of the membership shares that view?You have to fight battles you have a chance to win.Some have different ideas about what is winnable and how to go about winning. Do you think that horseplayers have any independent leverage with respect to the drug issue? Barry Irwin recently suggested that more whales leave the game over that issue than over takeout, yet even though horsemen support whales, they still aren't addressing the drug issue. Why should they be expected to do so for all bettors?I can't really speak for HANA since I haven't been very involved. I just don't have the time.Yes, I see you are displayed as one of the PA board monitors again. ;)I do have a hard time knocking anything they do when they do it for free and with good intentions. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see, but I trust them.I guess they gave "A"s for effort where you went to school. For me, it was always results that counted. Of course one needs to be able to compare the results with the expectations to be able to evaluate them in a meaningful fashion. So far, too little of either has been available.

I do what I do for free and with the best intentions, but I won't get a result either unless other like-minded HANA members speak out publicly as well.

DeanT

07-20-2009, 03:27 PM

jdl
John,

As we mentioned earlier, the polling of members is progressing. A HANA member who is a professional in polling and polling via the web has offered his services and guidance for free. We had one phone meeting with him and we have another scheduled to move it forward.

It is going to cost a little bit of money, but we think it will be a good thing, and we hope with his expertise to get some good feedback on issues in the best scientific way we can, via members. There is quite a bit that goes into these things that I was completely unaware to make sure you are not getting skewed data. I guess that is why people hire people like this fella!

We cant give you a timeline on this, as it is still in the early stages, but I would hope it will not take too long, and by doing it with a professional pollsters help, we can at least be sure we set the table to get some good feedback en masse.

D

miesque

07-20-2009, 04:37 PM

I am not sure what the point of Indulto's continued interrogation of CJ is other then to quite clearly illustrate that Indulto is very much into know as much as possible about everybody else's business and exactly what everyone is doing and most importantly, why they are doing what they are doing. Meanwhile, the irony is that Indulto has yet to actually do a damn thing and has accomplished exactly zilch other then attempting to raise the stock price of Bristol Myers Squbb through the increased sales of aspirin and other pain relievers.

Just for the record, for those who are unaware, Indulto had even more of a chance to be a significant driving force in HANA as an officer or member of the Board of Directors then I did, if he actually wanted to take some responsibility since he was around when the idea was created and I was not. Unfortunately he was unable to move forward with the organization in any meaningful capacity since he refused to leave the comfy anonymous confines of cyberspace when the decision was made to move forward and become a corporate entity which mandates operating in the real world, not as a screen name in cyberspace. The HANA Board of Directors has been paying a price for his inability to join the real world and actually participate in the organization in a meaningful way as he has been trying to manage HANA from behind the keyboard ever since by nitpicking, criticizing and wearing down the board through attrition with War and Peace style posts and responses. Yes, occasionally Indulto has a useful idea (even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then) but those ideas are presented in the most inefficient and ineffective manner possible and even worse, it ends up monopolizes time that could be going to working in a much more productive fashion with other members.

Indulto

07-20-2009, 04:51 PM

... the polling of members is progressing. A HANA member who is a professional in polling and polling via the web has offered his services and guidance for free. ...

... we hope with his expertise to get some good feedback on issues in the best scientific way we can, via members. There is quite a bit that goes into these things that I was completely unaware to make sure you are not getting skewed data. ...

... by doing it with a professional pollsters help, we can at least be sure we set the table to get some good feedback en masse. ...Your providing more details is appreciated, and thanks to the HANA member for stepping forward. It sounds very encouraging.

Is it safe to assume that most of the cost is software related and that it would eliminate or significantly reduce the cost of additional polling in the future? If so, it certainly warrants advance funding by the membership. Please provide a postal mailing address for that purpose. Some idea of the total expenditure would be helpful in determining contribution amount.

cj

07-20-2009, 05:33 PM

Having asked this of so many, it is hard to remember having asked you, in particular. I pursue this nuance, because I've been accused of misinterpreting other generalities. Fool me once ...Are you ever a part of the decision making process?Wouldn't you like to know what percentage of the membership shares that view?Some have different ideas about what is winnable and how to go about winning. Do you think that horseplayers have any independent leverage with respect to the drug issue? Barry Irwin recently suggested that more whales leave the game over that issue than over takeout, yet even though horsemen support whales, they still aren't addressing the drug issue. Why should they be expected to do so for all bettors?Yes, I see you are displayed as one of the PA board monitors again. ;)I guess they gave "A"s for effort where you went to school. For me, it was always results that counted. Of course one needs to be able to compare the results with the expectations to be able to evaluate them in a meaningful fashion. So far, too little of either has been available.

I do what I do for free and with the best intentions, but I won't get a result either unless other like-minded HANA members speak out publicly as well.

I won't quote your post and go point by point, but this is the stuff that I think goes too far.

What does being a moderator have to do with anything? When I'm on the board, which is a few times a day, if I see something out of line I fix it, period. I didn't realize I had to explain to you what I think I have time for and what I think I do not. Do you see where that could irritate me?

Am I ever part of the decision making process? No, I've never asked to be and don't want to be. I've been asked my opinion on some things and given it. As far as getting the consensus of members, I don't know. I think many horseplayers have unrealistic expectations so I'm not sure I'd want every consensus followed.

I can assure you where I went to school there were no As for effort. But I don't think you can give HANA a grade yet. It is a very new organization. I have chosen to give them the benefit of the doubt since they haven't given me a reason not to do so.

jonnielu

07-20-2009, 06:49 PM

John,

As we mentioned earlier, the polling of members is progressing. A HANA member who is a professional in polling and polling via the web has offered his services and guidance for free. We had one phone meeting with him and we have another scheduled to move it forward.

It is going to cost a little bit of money, but we think it will be a good thing, and we hope with his expertise to get some good feedback on issues in the best scientific way we can, via members. There is quite a bit that goes into these things that I was completely unaware to make sure you are not getting skewed data. I guess that is why people hire people like this fella!

We cant give you a timeline on this, as it is still in the early stages, but I would hope it will not take too long, and by doing it with a professional pollsters help, we can at least be sure we set the table to get some good feedback en masse.

D

Dean,

Thanks for the response, but the response makes the leadership of HANA sound more like a steering committee, especially when you are going to use a professional pollsteer to query the membership for feedback.

If I were a member, I would be insulted that you feel the need for a pollster to interpret my thoughts on what the issues are. Of course, that's just me, and I'm pretty sensitive.

jdl

jonnielu

07-20-2009, 07:00 PM

I am not sure what the point of Indulto's continued interrogation of CJ is other then to quite clearly illustrate that Indulto is very much into know as much as possible about everybody else's business and exactly what everyone is doing and most importantly, why they are doing what they are doing. Meanwhile, the irony is that Indulto has yet to actually do a damn thing and has accomplished exactly zilch other then attempting to raise the stock price of Bristol Myers Squbb through the increased sales of aspirin and other pain relievers.

Just for the record, for those who are unaware, Indulto had even more of a chance to be a significant driving force in HANA as an officer or member of the Board of Directors then I did, if he actually wanted to take some responsibility since he was around when the idea was created and I was not. Unfortunately he was unable to move forward with the organization in any meaningful capacity since he refused to leave the comfy anonymous confines of cyberspace when the decision was made to move forward and become a corporate entity which mandates operating in the real world, not as a screen name in cyberspace. The HANA Board of Directors has been paying a price for his inability to join the real world and actually participate in the organization in a meaningful way as he has been trying to manage HANA from behind the keyboard ever since by nitpicking, criticizing and wearing down the board through attrition with War and Peace style posts and responses. Yes, occasionally Indulto has a useful idea (even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then) but those ideas are presented in the most inefficient and ineffective manner possible and even worse, it ends up monopolizes time that could be going to working in a much more productive fashion with other members.

Not to get off track, but your post reminds me of the situation Bill Clinton had on his hands a few years back. Where he really didn't have time to address the issue of perjuring himself on an affidavit, because it distracted from all the important work he was supposedly doing for the American people.

jdl

DeanT

07-20-2009, 07:16 PM

Dean,

Thanks for the response, but the response makes the leadership of HANA sound more like a steering committee, especially when you are going to use a professional pollsteer to query the membership for feedback.

If I were a member, I would be insulted that you feel the need for a pollster to interpret my thoughts on what the issues are. Of course, that's just me, and I'm pretty sensitive.

jdl

Hi John,

It is not about reading your thoughts or interpreting them in some weird way, it is all about doing it right. We need to know what type of software to use and how to set it up. How to make a questionnaire that is properly answered. How to structure it so that we can get the best data out of the exercise. What is the optimum number of questions. What sample size we need to get a decent sample. And so on. The same question with polling itself for one question. We need to make it as accurate as possible if we can.

We wanted to reach 1000 members by September of 09 (one year since incorporation). We figured we'd need at least 2000 members to do a proper survey and so on, but were not sure. We are ahead of that pace and have close to 1300 folks now, so we are getting close to having to set this up. Regardless this will not be a large sample as response rates for any survey or poll are only a fraction of who gets it. So we can not do it willy nilly.

We have a member with some expertise on this, and it made sense when he offered to help recently to take him up on it to make sure this is done correctly. It's a good opportunity to do this right.

As for informal "polls", that is what we have been doing since we started. We would have an idea for a post, or a member would give us an idea for a post on the blog, we would then write it up, post it on the net on chat boards and look at feedback. If it was positive we would then make it something we'd look into, if not we would drop it and move onto something else. Currently we are in due diligence phase for wagering integrity. The reason we started to work so hard on that? Because of a thread here and elsewhere, where the posts were overwhelmingly in favor of doing something, and in the press and elsewhere the industry was in disarray over the issue. We have been working at that for two months now. It was spurred by bettors on the web. We use that the best we can to find issues and then float them out there for feedback. With such a small group of members it is pretty much the only method that makes sense. Hopefully the member survey's and/or polls will help us shape policy from here on out, but we will ALWAYS watch what bettors are saying on the web for clues and new directions.

D

Indulto

07-20-2009, 07:48 PM

I realize miesque responded first, but since another Leo Tolstoy emulation may be required in that direction, and I sense a measure of conciliatory sincerity below, I should address yours first.I won't quote your post and go point by point, but this is the stuff that I think goes too far.

What does being a moderator have to do with anything? When I'm on the board, which is a few times a day, if I see something out of line I fix it, period. I didn't realize I had to explain to you what I think I have time for and what I think I do not. Do you see where that could irritate me?Indeed you don’t and shouldn’t have to explain your personal time and tasks to me -- just as I shouldn’t have to explain my personal circumstances to you. In fact I was only making light of our long-standing differences regarding moderator functions, but I’m pleased to know it was as irritating as some of your remarks can be. Perhaps we can now progress to more fruitful discussions with greater awareness of each other’s sensitivities.Am I ever part of the decision making process? No, I've never asked to be and don't want to be. I've been asked my opinion on some things and given it. As far as getting the consensus of members, I don't know. I think many horseplayers have unrealistic expectations so I'm not sure I'd want every consensus followed.Good point. It is leadership’s job to make some of those calls, or to provide additional fuel for further discussion where appropriate, but they would always benefit from the feedback. What you don’t know can hurt you as well.I can assure you where I went to school there were no As for effort. But I don't think you can give HANA a grade yet. It is a very new organization. I have chosen to give them the benefit of the doubt since they haven't given me a reason not to do so.Mid-term grades are supposed to tell when and where improvement is needed.

miesque

07-20-2009, 08:53 PM

Indulto - Don't even bother, I am about 2-3 three posts from making you the first person I have ever put on Ignore on any board I have been on, so its pretty soon going to be a moot point.

Warren Henry

07-20-2009, 10:02 PM

, I am about 2-3 three posts from making you the first person I have ever put on Ignore on any board I have been on, so its pretty soon going to be a moot point.

Spend one day reading Off Topic and fill out your list :lol:

Indulto

07-21-2009, 01:36 AM

Indulto - Don't even bother, I am about 2-3 three posts from making you the first person I have ever put on Ignore on any board I have been on, so its pretty soon going to be a moot point.No bother at all, miesque. Surely you wouldn’t deprive me of the opportunity to answer all your charges? It’s a shame you’re considering imposing the ignore facility on yourself simply because you can’t help responding, and exposing self-limiting behavior of your own.Actually we do have plans in the works to do a comprehensive survey of members, right now its in its formative stages and frankly the less time that Board members spend on the internet getting involved in circular, long winded arguments, the greater chance it and other items will get moved along at a faster rate, …If you had bothered to include the details that Dean subsequently provided about the polling project in the space you wasted entertaining yourself, a lot more positive discussion MIGHT have ensued, but "plans in the works" came across like "check’s in the mail".I am not sure what the point of Indulto's continued interrogation of CJ is other then to quite clearly illustrate that Indulto is very much into know as much as possible about everybody else's business and exactly what everyone is doing and most importantly, why they are doing what they are doing.This is the crux of the problem. Your business involving HANA is every member's business. Feedback and transparency are YOUR responsibility.Meanwhile, the irony is that Indulto has yet to actually do a damn thing and has accomplished exactly zilch other then attempting to raise the stock price of Bristol Myers Squbb through the increased sales of aspirin and other pain relievers.Extracting information from HANA has indeed become a painful process. There must be some accuracy to the points I’ve raised if they are having such a deleterious effect.Just for the record, for those who are unaware, Indulto had even more of a chance to be a significant driving force in HANA as an officer or member of the Board of Directors then I did, if he actually wanted to take some responsibility since he was around when the idea was created and I was not. Unfortunately he was unable to move forward with the organization in any meaningful capacity since he refused to leave the comfy anonymous confines of cyberspace when the decision was made to move forward and become a corporate entity which mandates operating in the real world, not as a screen name in cyberspace.I was out of the loop well before the formal board of directors was discussed (at least in my presence), and I never sought a role that required visibility.The HANA Board of Directors has been paying a price for his inability to join the real world and actually participate in the organization in a meaningful way as he has been trying to manage HANA from behind the keyboard ever since by nitpicking, criticizing and wearing down the board through attrition with War and Peace style posts and responses.My unwelcome questions are not some form of payback as you seem to imply, but an attempt to preserve HANA’s potential for benefitting the non-professional player, because I still believe HANA is worth the effort; assuming the board's long-term vision for HANA doesn't now include full-time career opportunities.Yes, occasionally Indulto has a useful idea (even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then) but those ideas are presented in the most inefficient and ineffective manner possible and even worse, it ends up monopolizes time that could be going to working in a much more productive fashion with other members.I suppose I’ve had some good ideas and some that were not so good. That can happen in a vacuum. It can also happen in a closed feedback loop.

Here’s a kicker for you, miesque. I composed the second draft of what eventually became the blog’s mission statement based on a first draft composed by Jeff P. I always tried to keep the bolded portions firmly in mind.Our mission is to unite as many bettors of North American tracks as possible …

… Our immediate goal is to recruit as many members as soon as possible.

1) Membership will always be free and never require more information than a valid e-mail address to participate
2) Ideas and opinions will always be welcome, and we will attempt to respond to every productive e-mail we receive.
3) Operating funds required for advertising, off-line communication, etc., will be voluntary, and a full open accounting will be provided to members quarterly.
4) Anyone wishing to expand their support and/or involvement will be able to engage individual staff directly.
5) Keep membership advised of organizational developments as frequently as possible
6) Survey membership regularly to keep our goals and priorities in alignment.I believed at the time (and still do) that 5) and 6) were critical components for recruiting; that the more people knew about what we were doing and thinking, the more likely they would join us. I wonder if maintaining that focus would have had the desired effect on membership totals.

Now that the polling cat is out of the bag, your aspirin bill should go down for a while anyway.

Yours truly,
Leo T.

riskman

07-21-2009, 02:15 AM

I think many horseplayers have unrealistic expectations so I'm not sure I'd want every consensus followed

IMO --you hit the nail on the head.

riskman

07-21-2009, 02:23 AM

Not to get off track, but your post reminds me of the situation Bill Clinton had on his hands a few years back. Where he really didn't have time to address the issue of perjuring himself on an affidavit, because it distracted from all the important work he was supposedly doing for the American people.

jdl

You are off track. What does this add to the discussion except a distraction as in your example of busy Billy boy.

jonnielu

07-21-2009, 09:45 AM

You are off track. What does this add to the discussion except a distraction as in your example of busy Billy boy.

Well, I'm just trying to point out my perception of HANA. If I do it directly, people get pissed. That, and the fact that they seem to be ignoring the first poll, and hard at work on a second, with results more to their liking.

jdl

rokitman

07-21-2009, 10:37 AM

Get a consensus and all you'll ever have is an opinion that is average.

TimesTheyRAChangin

07-21-2009, 02:58 PM

Indulto - Don't even bother, I am about 2-3 three posts from making you the first person I have ever put on Ignore on any board I have been on, so its pretty soon going to be a moot point.

Same here!
1st person I have ever done this to.
Just too much nonsense in any thread I read where I find him posting.

miesque

07-21-2009, 03:34 PM

Same here!
1st person I have ever done this to.
Just too much nonsense in any thread I read where I find him posting.

:ThmbUp:

In the end it all boils down to simple the fact that life is too short and I have to comment that I feel a lot better now that I have pulled the trigger. :)

alydar

07-21-2009, 08:50 PM

This thread has become an embarasment to all involved.

I suggest that it die.

ezrabrooks

07-21-2009, 10:23 PM

This Thread Rocks...

Ez

Indulto

07-22-2009, 12:08 AM

This thread has become an embarasment to all involved.

I suggest that it die.alydar,
I disagree with your assessment. miesque has hardly embarrassed herself, having displayed her talent as a gutsy and entertaining cyber-gladiator; giving as good as she gets. I accept her cyber-payback for my commentary regarding her current contributions or lack thereof. Such combativeness will be necessary to achieve the most difficult objectives.

Post combat, however, I’m reminded of a kindergartner who puts her fingers in her ears when an adult is saying something to her that she doesn’t want to hear. Not exactly the ideal image for someone wishing to represent others.

My now protectively-cocooned opponent should take comfort in knowing she is responsible for much introspection both prior to and following my previous post. Placing my on-line persona under a microscope -- and trivializing my reluctance to sacrifice my personal privacy when demanded to do so by some whose motivation and objectives were unclear to me at the time -- has replenished my confidence in my principles. To be fair, there were signs that subsequent reform agendas would be unlikely to match initial rhetoric well before JP returned to active duty following my discharge.

Miesque is but one individual among several who may yet achieve their collective potential if they don’t continue to exclude others with ideas at variance with their own. The launching of the blog was a tremendously rewarding experience. I suspect the success of the track ratings project culminating with the meeting at KEE must have resulted in yet another high for my former colleagues. I wish them many more. Once they deliver on the feedback commitment, I’m sure they will.

Just in case this thread is closed, I want to express my regret at not having paid enough attention last July to the interests of people who are prevented from watching and wagering on horseracing a) because of their residency in states that don’t allow them to, and b) due to infirmity. IMO this should be part of the signal availability issue. My failure to pursue it at the time is the only thing that embarrasses me about my participation at PA or HANA.

Along those same lines, before a horseplayer contributes to a horse rescue operation, I’d like him/her to stop and consider whether they might also/rather reach out to an infirm former player who would enjoy some contact with racing; whether making it possible for them to watch races not televised on regular TV or maybe just spending a little time talking with an Alzheimer’s patient who may not know what day it is, but can still remember the Jaipur/Ridan Travers as if it were yesterday.

PaceAdvantage

07-22-2009, 03:24 AM

wow

highnote

07-26-2009, 02:23 PM

I had to laugh at the contrast in the size of posts #111 and #112.

It's like Rush Limbaugh meets Harpo Marx. :D

Indulto

07-26-2009, 07:19 PM

I had to laugh at the contrast in the size of posts #111 and #112.

It's like Rush Limbaugh meets Harpo Marx. :DI would have preferred you had chosen a left-leaning bombast for your comparison, but I commend you for keeping your fingers out of your ears so far. Should you subsequently decide to join your colleague in her pursuit of ignorance using the IGNORE facility, don't demean yourself by duplicating her drive-by execution. ;)

That woul only encourage me to create another "wow moment" for PA. :lol:

highnote

07-26-2009, 09:03 PM

Should you subsequently decide to join your colleague in her pursuit of ignorance using the IGNORE facility, don't demean yourself by duplicating her drive-by execution.

Your post is a perfect example of what Steve Karpman, MD called the "Drama Triangle". Howard Sartin presented the concept in his document called "The Psychology of Winning, an Introduction to Win Therapy".

This is where the "scripts" are lived and all transactional games are played. Each player rotates around the Drama Triangle, alternately playing the roles of Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim throughout life.

You try to draw others into the game by what is refered to as manipulation by adaptation.

In this instance, you have taken the role of Persecuter and tried to draw me into the Triangle by telling me not to demean myself "by duplicating her drive-by execution".

Miesque gave you an adult response and chose to no longer play your game. You found this unsatisfying and you now seek other willing players. No doubt you will find others to play your game. Millions of people participate in the Drama Triangle everyday.

I am not interested in playing, either. Have a good life -- whoever you are. :sleeping:

Indulto

07-26-2009, 10:56 PM

Your post is a perfect example of what Steve Karpman, MD called the "Drama Triangle". Howard Sartin presented the concept in his document called "The Psychology of Winning, an Introduction to Win Therapy".

This is where the "scripts" are lived and all transactional games are played. Each player rotates around the Drama Triangle, alternately playing the roles of Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim throughout life.

You try to draw others into the game by what is refered to as manipulation by adaptation.

In this instance, you have taken the role of Persecuter and tried to draw me into the Triangle by telling me not to demean myself "by duplicating her drive-by execution".

Miesque gave you an adult response and chose to no longer play your game. You found this unsatisfying and you now seek other willing players. No doubt you will find others to play your game. Millions of people participate in the Drama Triangle everyday.

I am not interested in playing, either. Have a good life -- whoever you are. :sleeping:Hmmmm. Your drive-by sign-off is consistent with my suspicions as to who initiated the anonymity issue internally.

Interestingly, it was you who brought this thread back into the light, so for you to try and claim that you are above manipulation is somewhat ludicrous. Especially since -- more than anyone else -- you were responsible for the formation of HANA. You spent considerable time getting people into the War Room and also served up more than your share of reform rhetoric. The blog would never have been launched without your approval; the timing of which you indicated was motivated in part by alleged disparaging remarks from a racetrack executive toward horseplayers.

Your subsequent reversal of cyber-form is one of the biggest disappointments of my HANA experience. Even though you choose to use your first and last name, and have assumed a visible position for public consumption, how many members really know who you are, what motivates you, or who you represent?

At least miesque is no hypocrite.

Indulto

07-28-2009, 03:53 PM

John,

As we mentioned earlier, the polling of members is progressing. A HANA member who is a professional in polling and polling via the web has offered his services and guidance for free. We had one phone meeting with him and we have another scheduled to move it forward.

It is going to cost a little bit of money, but we think it will be a good thing, and we hope with his expertise to get some good feedback on issues in the best scientific way we can, via members. There is quite a bit that goes into these things that I was completely unaware to make sure you are not getting skewed data. I guess that is why people hire people like this fella!

We cant give you a timeline on this, as it is still in the early stages, but I would hope it will not take too long, and by doing it with a professional pollsters help, we can at least be sure we set the table to get some good feedback en masse.

DI’ve been wondering how HANA expects to use sophisticated polling software and/or services? I'm all for deploying the volunteer services of the above-mentioned pollster/player, but how sophisticated does polling need to be to keep people in the loop?

As it was recently explained to me, sophisticated polling is used by political campaigns to determine who will vote. It is not enough just to know an individual’s preference for a particular candidate, but also whether or not he/she will actually vote, and whether or not this individual is representative of the far larger number of people he/she will be representing in the polling sample.

As I understand it, such techniques might be useful in polling people who are not members of HANA to find out not only why they aren’t, but also whether they’re ever likely to be, and again whether they are representative of a larger group. A similar poll might provide insight as to what issues a horseplayers group should be pursuing in order to increase its membership.

However, does a 1300+ membership require such sophistication in order to express its views clearly about what its leadership is currently doing and what it is planning on doing in the future? IMO it only needs the opportunity to actually do so. Is this just another way of delaying that opportunity?

I don’t expect a response from those who are ignoring my posts, but the above post should not be allowed to remain the last one forthcoming on the subject.

rrbauer

07-28-2009, 08:17 PM

HANA can make giant leaps towards communication with its membership by simply adopting a policy of regular "newsletters" that keeps members in the loop about HANA's progress; and, its plans going forward.

HANA chooses not to do that. Why, I do not know. It's pretty basic stuff when it comes to organizational behavior. A year (or less) from now, when HANA is deemed to have been a failure, people will be posing the "why" questions. Given the propensity of HANA's leadership towards non-member communication, I don't expect the "why" answers will have much substance.

I'm waiting for HANA to acknowledge that the ONLY bargaining chip that horseplayers (read: members) have is their money. Ducking the obvious with weekly "pool parties" at high-takeout venues and then engaging in self-congratulatory proclamations about how much HANA increased the pools in Race N at the target venue is pretty damn stupid. Harsh? Damn right.

It is what it is.

BillW

07-28-2009, 09:36 PM

HANA can make giant leaps towards communication with its membership by simply adopting a policy of regular "newsletters" that keeps members in the loop about HANA's progress; and, its plans going forward.

HANA chooses not to do that. Why, I do not know. It's pretty basic stuff when it comes to organizational behavior. A year (or less) from now, when HANA is deemed to have been a failure, people will be posing the "why" questions. Given the propensity of HANA's leadership towards non-member communication, I don't expect the "why" answers will have much substance.

I'm waiting for HANA to acknowledge that the ONLY bargaining chip that horseplayers (read: members) have is their money. Ducking the obvious with weekly "pool parties" at high-takeout venues and then engaging in self-congratulatory proclamations about how much HANA increased the pools in Race N at the target venue is pretty damn stupid. Harsh? Damn right.

It is what it is.

Rich,

It's only been 3 weeks since our last newsletter and the pool parties have been done at the initiative of and led by 2 HANA members. Our policy is certainly not to discourage member participation.